Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Directorate General of Research and Development

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many staff are employed in his Directorate General of Research and Development; how many vacancies exist; what are the total costs of salaries, wages, pensions, accommodation and all overhead expenses since this Directorate was established; how many research reports it has published; and what reduction in the cost of housing units, or increase in the number of housing units constructed, has resulted from its work.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Reginald Prentice): At the end of 1966 the staff employed totalled 231; there were 53 vacancies. Total costs amounted to £1,960,000. The Directorate has issued 28 publications, a monthly statistical bulletin, and a sub-

stantial number of contributions to the scientific and technical Press. The Directorate is helping the industry in many different ways, and its work is highly appreciated but it is not practicable to quantify the results of its efforts in the way suggested in the Question.

Mrs. Short: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but would he not agree that, as this was an internal "gimmick" set up in 1962 by the party opposite when they were in power, as it has produced nothing worth while, and is a duplication of what is already done better by the Ministry of Technology, it should be disbanded?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. In the deathbed repentance period of Conservative Government, they produced one or two good ideas and this was one. It is doing work of great value in winter building, building maintenance, the application of computers to building management, component development and other matters which it would take too long to describe in a supplementary answer. This work will grow in value over the years ahead.

Construction Industry Research and Information Association

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made by him in organising the proposed Construction Industry Research and Information Association based on the Civil Engineering Research Association; how much public money will be provided in a full year; and how much has been promised by the


National Federation of Building Trades Employers, and by the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Mr. Prentice: Proposals for the new Association have been accepted by the Council of the Civil Engineering Research Association and will shortly be put to the full membership for ratification. The new Association would receive a grant from public funds of around £200,000 in its first full year, depending on the amount which the industry subscribes. Neither the National Federation nor the Royal Institute, as such, has promised a monetary contribution, but assurances of financial support have been given by individual firms in the industry.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the building employers have apparently offered only £16,000? As they and the British architects are apparently not very enthusiastic about this idea, does he not think that this, again, is an unnecessary duplication of what is being done much better by the Building Research Station, for example, which is rightly under the Minister of Technology and which has all the resources of that Department?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. Whatever is done by Government Departments or Government research associations, the industry ought to do more for itself and should have had an association of this kind years ago. As to the amounts of money promised, we are hoping that for the first year it will have a budget of £400,000, of which about three-quarters has been promised already. I hope that more will be promised when the full meeting of C.E.R.A. ratifies the decision of its Council. This will not be enough for what most of us would like, but it will have a growth potential and I hope that it will grow over the years to come.

Ships of Historic Value (Preservation)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will seek powers to add the preservation of ships of historic value or beauty of design to the similar powers he has to save buildings.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the project for the formation of

a National Maritime Trust for the preservation of ships of historic interest and importance? Will he reconsider that negative reply?

Mr. Prentice: I should like to have details of that from my hon. Friend and I would consult other right hon. Friends of mine in the Government about it. I am not sure that the Ministry of Public Building and Works is the right harbour for this venture, but perhaps something might be done—I do not know—in Government generally.

Buckingham Palace Gardens (Outside Wall)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he will take to beautify the outside wall of the garden of Buckingham Palace.

Mr. Prentice: I understand the hon. Member has in mind that roses and plants might be put outside the stretch of wall along Grosvenor Place. This is a matter for the Westminster City Council which is giving it sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Tilney: Would the right hon. Gentleman do his best to "chivvy up" the Westminster Council? Would he not agree that it would be very much nicer that the wall should be worthy of the Palace rather than, as now, looking like part of a Victorian prison?

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman has put the view to the City Council that something might be done here. I understand that the Council is now giving it active consideration.

Devonport Dockyard and H.M.S. "Drake"

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what new buildings are planned or improvements made in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, and H.M.S. "Drake", Devonport, in 1967.

Mr. Prentice: It is now planned to redevelop H.M.S. "Drake" at a cost of about £2 million. Preliminary work will start this year and the new construction should begin in 1968 or early 1969. I have written to the hon. Lady about the dockyard.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and


appreciate his courtesy in sending me a letter dealing with the dockyard. However, considering that everything that he mentioned can be seen either from the 14-storey blocks or the top of a bus, I cannot see why it should be confidential. With regard to H.M.S. "Drake", will the Wrens move into these quarters in the near future? Does he consider getting rid of the hutted accommodation, which it is undesirable for naval personnel on leave to sleep in?

Mr. Prentice: I was advised on the security aspect by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It is not the usual practice to publish details of developments at dockyards. Even if some aspects may be apparent, if the whole lot is added together, it gives a picture of the naval building programme which should preferably be kept confidential. The earlier scheme to modernise the Hawkins Block has been dropped because the building was too small and the conversion was uneconomic, but a new building to provide accommodation for the Wrens is being considered as part of the development plan. On the hon. Lady's other question, it depends which parts of the hutting are involved. If the hon. Lady would like it, I will give her some more detailed information in a letter.

Royal Naval Hospital, Plymouth

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what work he intends shall be done at the Royal Naval Hospital, Plymouth, in 1967 to modernise this hospital.

Mr. Prentice: About £20,000 is to be spent on urgent minor works. My Department will also prepare a development plan for the future modernisation of this hospital.

Dame Joan Vickers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this hospital could play a useful rôle by continuing to take in civilian patients? Is he aware that it has excellent medical and nursing staff? Will he see to it that this hospital is modernised so that it is able to take in part of the waiting list which we have in the West Country?

Mr. Prentice: We have an ambitious development plan which will involve the modernisation of this hospital. As to the

rôle it plays and its relationship with civilian needs, I suggest that that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Kidbrooke Housing Site

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he now intends to hand over the Kidbrooke housing site to the Greater London Council; and what payments he has so far received from that authority, in respect of this land.

Mr. Prentice: Under the present agreement with the Council, 23½ acres have already been handed over. Another five acres should be available by the end of 1968 and a further three acres by the end of 1969. Payments so far total £789,000.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why there has been this delay in respect of part of this very much needed site?

Mr. Prentice: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the majority of it has been handed over already. The other two parts, to which I referred, are parts where R.A.F. units are stationed at the moment. Under the timetable agreed in 1965, they should leave by the dates I mentioned, and this will be consistent with G.L.C.'s proposals for housing on the site. I have no reason to believe that the dates will not be met in time.

Building Systems (Imported Materials)

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what action he is taking to reduce the excessive dependence on imported materials in certain building systems.

Mr. Prentice: I am satisfied that there is no excessive dependence on imported materials, but I have impressed on the industry the need to exercise economy in their use. The general question of import saving is also being considered by the E.D.C. for Building.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In view of the fact that blame is sometimes unjustly fastened on to the building industry for causing a strain on our balance of payments, will the right hon. Gentleman initiate discussions with his colleagues at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government with a view to suggesting that


they might abolish their system of 5M, in view of its excessive dependence on timber and the fact that it is not universally aesthetically acceptable?

Mr. Prentice: These matters are being reviewed by all the Government Departments concerned and we are anxious to make import savings where necessary. As for putting restrictions on the use of timber in the systems involved, such restrictions might jeopardise the industrialised parts of the housing programme. Again, other restrictions might be in breach of our agreements with other countries in E.F.T.A. which provide timber for us.

Building and Construction Industries (Capacity)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what studies he has sponsored into the capacity of the building and construction industries.

Mr. Prentice: My Department has commissioned a study at the University of Manchester into the factors affecting growth and efficiency in the building industry. We are also seeking to negotiate a joint study by the University of Manchester and the University of Liverpool into the effect of variations in building resources on building firms and projects in the Manchester and Merseyside areas.

Mr. Blaker: In view of the importance of this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that the Manchester University study will be published? Is he satisfied that there will be adequate liaison between those engaged on that study and the Walters Committee on Computers?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. I would expect that the results of both studies will be published. As for liaison, it is the task of the Directorate General of Research and Development in my Ministry to co-ordinate such research. Mr. Walters is, in fact, the Deputy Director General and it is reasonable to say that the work on computers is being correlated to these other studies.

Mr. More: Would not the capacity of the industry increase if the Government ceased to give support for direct labour being used in the building industry?

Mr. Prentice: I believe that there is room for both private and public enterprise building, providing they are efficient.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we attach great importance to these two studies? Is he satisfied that enough attention is being paid to the need to increase productivity in the vital maintenance sector?

Mr. Prentice: The Parliamentary Secretary is, in fact, the chairman of a group which has the task of co-ordinating a number of maintenance studies so as to achieve efficiency. However, I am not satisfied that maintenance is being carried out as efficiently as it should be. It occupies about 40 per cent. of building operatives and I agree that not enough study was given in the past to the efficiency of this sector. However, it is something to which we are giving a great deal of study at the moment.

Plastic Pipes

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what grants he has made towards research into the use of plastic pipes for hot water supply.

Mr. Prentice: None. Sir. The plastic manufacturers are devoting a great deal of research and development effort to this, and may expect considerable returns from success in this field. My Ministry is keeping closely in touch with progress, and the Building Research Station is also carrying out some work in this field.

Mr. Blaker: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a very important sphere indeed, in view of the uncertainties about the supply and price of copper? Would he consider the payment of grants to encourage an urgent study into this matter?

Mr. Prentice: I agree that this is a vitally important matter and that is why we are keeping closely in touch with progress. However, we believe that at the moment there is no need for Government grants because a great deal of research and development is being done by the manufacturers themselves.

Bricks

Mr. Pym: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works in what year since the cessation of hostilities in 1945 the stock of bricks in Great Britain exceeded 770 million at the end of the month of November.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now announce the target for brick production in 1967 agreed with the representatives of the brick production industry; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he intends to offer advice to brickmakers on the likely requirements for brick production in 1967.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the size of the stocks of bricks at the end of 1966; and what were the comparable figures for the end of 1965, 1964, and 1963, respectively.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the current stockpiles of bricks.

Mr. Prentice: Stocks at the end of 1966 were about 886 million compared with 561 million, 115 million and 263 million at the end of 1965, 1964 and 1963 respectively. The stock in November, 1966, was the highest for that month since 1945.
I meet representatives of the brick industry frequently, but I have not set any specific target for production in 1967. I expect demand to increase this year.

Mr. Pym: Will the Minister now confirm that the stockpile of bricks today is probably approaching the 1,000 million figure? Is it not fantastic that at this time of the year, in such favourable weather conditions, bricks of this quantity should be in stock? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered what the cost of this stockpiling is and would he not agree that a continuation of this stockpiling is a strong disincentive to brickmakers to make more bricks, so that they will be available when they are needed again?

Mr. Prentice: I agree that this is an abnormally high stock, as I indicated in my Answer. I hope that it will not discourage brick makers from investing in plant for the future because, clearly, the building needs of the country in the years ahead will be such that we shall need an increasing production of bricks and other materials.

Mr. Allason: Would not the right hon. Gentleman chance his arm and give the industry a target? Is he aware that at present the only target the industry has is that for 1965? As the brickmakers produced last year 18 per cent. less than the 1965 target, and remembering the quantities which they are perfectly capable of producing, would not he agree that they are in a bit of muddle as a result of his action?

Mr. Prentice: They probably find it more helpful that we should keep in constant touch with them. This we are doing. I met their representatives several times and my officials are in more frequent contact with them. The aim is to have regular discussions so that the position is known from month to month and so that we may give them the best advice we can.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is not the reduction of more than 800 million bricks in production last year, compared with 1964, considered with the enormous surplus about which we have just heard from the right hon. Gentle, a bitter reflection of the failure of the Government's house-building programme?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The Government's house-building programme has been better than the previous Conservative Government's programme. [Interruption.] Naturally, we all want to see even better results. I believe that there will be an increase in building starts in the private sector this year. This was the sector in which starts have been falling—resulting in one of the main factors for the excessive stocks of bricks.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Why does the right hon. Gentleman tell my hon. Friend that he is keeping in constant touch with the industry? If that is so, why does he think that the brickmakers went to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the other day? Was it because the


Minister of Public Building and Works had told them that they were exaggerating the position last August or was it because they had given up all hope of the Minister doing anything for the industry, for which he is responsible?

Mr. Prentice: I have seen them a number of times recently and I do not believe that they exaggerated the position, although certain hon. Gentlemen opposite do at times make exaggerated statements. The reason the brickmakers went to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of House and Local Government was because they wanted to discuss the sort of advice given by that Ministry to local authorities about the proportion of industrialised building that should be done. The brickmakers were anxious about this and it was thought better that they should see my hon. Friend about it.

Mr. Channon: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are now considering, in this difficult situation, giving perhaps temporary credit help to the brick industry?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. We have not been considering giving such help specifically to the brick industry. An announcement was made a short while ago by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about bridging finance. That was made in very general terms, but it ought to help brickmaking as well as other industries.

Mr. Costain: Has the Minister observed the number of brickworks which are closing down? Does he appreciate how long it takes to get them started up again?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, I have noticed that, and it worries me, but, to put the matter in perspective, we should remember that brickworks closures have been going on for a number of years for a variety of reasons. These include technical changes which have led to certain methods becoming out of date. Of course I regard this as a serious situation—but I do not regard the Government as culpable in any way, because most of the capacity concerned was in fact planned, if not laid down, before the present Government came into office.

Universities (Research Projects)

Mr Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many research projects into the problems of the construction and allied industries he has given to university departments.

Mr. Prentice: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 6th December, 1966.—[Vol. 737, c. 290.]

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister realise that while industry welcomes these inquiries, each of the universities is sending out separate questionnaires many of which are duplicated and many of the questions are considered not to concern increased productivity? Can he do something to cut down this waste of manpower by co-ordinating efforts?

Mr. Prentice: We do co-ordinate efforts in the sense that my Ministry ensures that the various contracts for which it is responsible do not overlap. As to research contracts which involve filling in forms, I know that people find that a nuisance, but I hope they will co-operate. I am sure the House will agree that increasing co-operation will be of benefit to both sides, as it is in other industries.

Greater London (Public Building)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what increase he expects in the amount of public building in the Greater London area in 1967.

Mr. Prentice: I expect this sector to show an increase in 1967, but it is not possible to forecast its precise size.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Minister aware that grave doubts are arising about the accuracy of some of the figures for council house approved tenders in Greater London recently issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? Is he aware that in the Borough of Bromley a tender for 256 dwellings has been wrenched out of the 1967 programme and put into the 1966 list, which gives a totally misleading picture?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I do not think there is any doubt about the accuracy of the list of approvals. As I understand it,


criticism was made by Conservative members of the G.L.C. that these were approvals and not starts. They are an indication of housing activity this year, which was the point of the hon. Member's original Question. These approvals in 1966 show a 50 per cent. increase over 1964 and indicate the enlightened and progressive management under which the G.L.C. and most London Boroughs operate.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the astonishment with which my constituents and I look at the development of Knightsbridge Barracks for the use of the Forces when there is a grave shortage of building in the Greater London area?

Mr. Prentice: Soldiers are people, and need to be rehoused as well as others. We are not building housing accommodation for horses but for people. There has to be a housing programme for the Forces in London and in other parts of the country.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he is satisfied that there will be no shortage of building materials needed to carry out the public building programme in the Greater London area in 1967; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. There is at present an adequate supply of virtually all building materials in the Greater London area.

Public Building (Contracts)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the building industries concerning the placing of contracts for public building.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his policy for the placing of building contracts by public bodies and local authorities; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: My Department's contracts for building and civil engineering work are normally placed after competitive tender by a selected number of contractors chosen from an approved list. Other methods, such as negotiated con

tracts, are used in appropriate circumstances.
My Department has encouraged greater use by local authorities and others of selective tendering, and has published two booklets as guidance on this subject; I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.
I have had no representations from the building industries about the placing of contracts.

Mr. Campbell: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the situation in Southwark? Can he confirm that the report by the National Building Agency has criticised the inefficiency in the direct labour system there?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir, but a question of that sort should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. On direct labour generally, as I said in reply to another Question, the Government endeavour to see that it is efficient, but efficiency in direct labour varies just as it varies in the private sector.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned methods of tendering. Where there are direct labour departments, are private contractors enabled to show that they can compete openly with direct labour? Quite apart from Southwark, are there not instances of wastefulness and worse in many industrial towns throughout the country? Could he not look into this matter and not shuffle it off on to another Department? Will he take notice that we want to have a debate on this matter at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Prentice: I am not shuffling this subject off, but reminding the House that this is my right hon. Friend's responsibility. He issued Circular 50/65 on this subject which has been a matter of some discussion. I merely say that generally I think the House will not be prone to look at the occasionally well publicised failures but at the picture as a whole including successes in direct labour.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many of the large cities, Liverpool in particular, over the years private enterprise has not tendered in the normal sense but has had agreed contracts one following the other?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. This form of serial tendering is one which has many advantages and I hope to see it spread among public authorities generally.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he seems to be denying responsibility for something almost every week, but he has a responsibility for the building industry and should fulfil it and he ought not to allow his Department to be eaten alive by the Government? If the N.B.A. had not been transferred, there is some reason to believe that the Southwark situation might not have arisen.

Mr. Prentice: I cannot be responsible for the inaccuracy of supplementary questions by hon. Members opposite if they ask a Question of one Minister which refers to another Minister.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of the irritation expressed by hon. Members opposite about direct labour organisations run by local authorities is because of the magnificent contribution those organisations have made to solving the housing problem of this country?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. Sir. I think the attitude of many hon. Members opposite is completely doctrinaire on this subject. The Government's attitude is that there is a contribution to be made both by direct labour and private enterprise and we want to encourage the best developments in both.

Labour Only Sub-Contracting

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he expects to publish the report of his inquiry into labour only sub-contracting; and by what date he instructed the Group to report to him.

Mr. Prentice: The inquiry has not yet been set up. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour hopes to make a statement about it in the near future.

Mr. Braille: This is quite astonishing. Would not the Minister agree that an inquiry of this kind would be of the greatest possible value to the industry? Can he not inject a little urgency into this matter and press for the inquiry to be started? How long will it take?

Mr. Prentice: I agree that it is a matter of very great importance. That is why the Government intend to set up the inquiry. As to the time taken, since I answered a Question on the matter on 21st November, my right hon. Friend and I have been discussing it with both sides of the building industry and the E.D.C.s for the building and the civil engineering industries. We thought it right to discuss the inquiry and the terms of reference in order to get it off to the right start, but I hope there will be an announcement very soon now.

Building and Construction Industry (Architects)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from members of the architectural profession about the current state of trade in the building and construction industry; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: Representatives of the architectural profession take part in regular discussions on the state of the industry.
Some letters have recently been received from architects, mainly about the effect on private practices of a change in the balance between the types of work private practices have specialised in and other types of work, particularly work for public authorities which employ their own architectural staff.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not the Minister agree that R.I.B.A. commissions are the best indication of the state of the industry? Does he not think that the 16 per cent. decrease in work over the third quarter of 1966, including housing reveals a very shocking state of affairs indeed in the Government's housing programme?

Mr. Prentice: There has been a steep decline in architects' commissions, but, as I said in my original reply, the kind of representations I have had refer to the change in balance between work in private offices and work in public authorities. In public authorities there is still a shortage of architects. Taking the architects' profession over the country as a whole, there is at the moment no shortage of work.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does not the Minister agree that architects generally throughout the country are indicating a serious situation in the building and construction industry and allied industries which is very serious indeed? What does he intend to do about it? Something must be done to improve the situation?

Mr. Prentice: The most disturbing feature in recent months has been the decline in the starts of new housing in the private enterprise sector. In other sectors of work, including the public sector of housing, there has been an upward trend. A number of things have been done recently which I think should encourage a revival of private housing starts. The reduction of Bank Rate is one. The announcement by the building societies of the extra funds they expect to have available is another. I could go on giving other examples. The Government are considering what further they could do to stimulate this sector.

Building Contract (Standard Form)

Mr. Eyre: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now announce the results of his Departmental discussions with the Board of Trade and representatives of the building and construction industries regarding a standard form of building contract; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: The discussions have strengthened the Government's view that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act does not obstruct the development of a standard building contract form as recommended by the Banwell Committee and need not impede the general adoption of such a form when available.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Minister aware that the building industry is being held in suspense over the settlement of this vital matter? Last July he said that it would be settled during the summer. What is the reason for this prolonged delay? When will it be ended?

Mr. Prentice: I should be surprised if I had said that the matter would be settled during the summer. I certainly said that we hoped to make some progress on it. I think that we have. The Board of Trade is now discussing with the Registrar of the Restrictive Practices Court measures which could legally be

taken by building employers to promote a more general use of the model contract form.

Annual Report

Mr. Eyre: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will produce an annual report on the work of his Department.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir.

Mr. Eyre: As the Minister of Housing and Local Government has coyly deferred his annual report for 1965–66, are we to understand that the Minister of Public Building and Works would refuse to make a report because he would be afraid of publishing the contents?

Mr. Prentice: If I did publish a report, it would be on my own responsibilities and not those of my right hon. Friend. There has been no annual report from the Ministry of Works since 1951—in other words, none was ever published when hon. Members opposite were in office—because it was felt that the information we had to communicate could better be communicated by other means and that reports would be superfluous. I think that this was a correct decision. I am not aware of any general demand that we should publish an annual report.

Minister (Overseas Visits)

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what overseas visits he proposes to make to inspect the work of his Department in 1967.

Mr. Prentice: I have not so far made arrangements for any such visits.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister recognise how greatly these visits are appreciated by his staff overseas, particularly at present? Does he not find that the fact that he has not got a Parliamentary Secretary in this House makes it more difficult for him to get away now?

Mr. Prentice: I made one trip to the Far East in September. If I were to plan another trip overseas, it might mean that I would have to make it in a recess rather than when the House was sitting, for the reason the hon. Gentleman has given. I think that these visits are appreciated, not only overseas, but at home where our Ministry has many offices


in the regions—district offices, depots, and so on. To get round to all of them would mean a couple of years or so of non-stop travel doing nothing else, which is something I could not justify. However, I take the point and I hope to make further visits overseas in due course.

Private Builders (Incentives)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what consultations he has had with private builders about giving incentives to the building industry during the present economic difficulties.

Mr. Prentice: There have been consultations with representatives of various branches of the industry regarding steps which would serve in particular to stimulate private sector house building.

Mr. Channon: Does not the Minister realise that as long ago as 15th December the Prime Minister gave a hint to the House that some such step was going on? When are we to hear further about this? Can he suggest what sort of help we shall get? I hope that it is not to be the sort of help we had with Selective Employment Tax. If we were to have such help again, it would be final disaster.

Mr. Prentice: There have been a number of developments, of which the hon. Gentleman should be aware. The announcement of the option mortgage scheme; larger subsidies for local authority housing; the reduction in Bank Rate; the increase in the funds available to building societies—all of these are factors which would help. I expect that there will be an announcement of some other Government measures fairly shortly.

Mr. Paget: Is not the Minister aware that the Rhodesian Government have taken steps to see that the building industry takes up any slack in their economy? Would he consider sending over a mission to examine their highly successful methods?

Mr. Prentice: I have not considered getting any guidance from that direction, either on this matter or on any other matter.

Sir G. Nabarro: If the aggregation of all of the advantages which the Minister is now claiming, such as the reduction in Bank Rate, the mortgage option scheme, and the remainder, has led to the record stock of bricks at 886 million at the end of December, how can the Minister justify his statement that his housing policy is a roaring success?

Mr. Prentice: Our housing progress has been better than that of hon. Members opposite but still not nearly good enough. Therefore, I would not use the expression "roaring success" and never have. Until every family in the country has a decent home to live in, none of us in national government or local government can afford to be complacent on this subject.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Minister aware that this is a very disappointing answer? Builders all over the country are disappointed. They have been waiting for this. Is he aware that the Prime Minister's statement on 15th December was taken very seriously, not just as a hint? Can it now be translated at least into a lightly given promise?

Mr. Prentice: Since the Prime Minister's statement in December, discussions have been proceeding with the builders, with the building societies and others. When their representatives talk to me and my right hon. Friends, they do not talk in the exaggerated accents of hon. Members opposite.

Building Materials

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what discussions he has had with the building materials industry about the production of and demand for building materials in 1967.

Mr. Prentice: I met representatives of the building materials producers on 12th January and discussed with them the position concerning production and demand.

Mr. Channon: Would not the Minister agree that, in view of the past fiascos in this field, it is valueless to have a global target for protection five years in advance, unless he can produce some indication of housing starts for the years in between? Will his Department now prepare public estimates for the years 1967–70 so that


the brickmakers can know what the Government's estimate of housing starts is likely to be in those years?

Mr. Prentice: I take the point that the building material producers want to have as much information as possible. That is what we are working on. As the hon. Gentleman says, the actual number of housing starts is more important than targets. These are the important things to the building material producers. Therefore the measures we are taking to stimulate private housing starts will be valuable to the building material producers as well as those waiting for homes.

Mr. Blaker: If the Minister believes, as he said a few moments ago, that the best way of dealing with the problems in the brick industry is to keep in touch with the industry, rather than by fixing targets for every year, why did the Government give such tremendous publicity to their targets for 1965–70?

Mr. Prentice: This was part of the National Plan and was appreciated as such. If hon. Members opposite did not think it was such a good idea, I wonder why they voted unanimously for the National Plan when it came before the House.

Whitehall (Official Residences)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the estimated cost of the reconstruction of all official residences in Whitehall excluding Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street; and how many residences will be provided when the work is completed.

Mr. Prentice: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and the hon. Members for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 23rd May, 1966.

Mr. Cooke: Does this represent a roaring success in the Ministerial housing drive? How many more residences are planned? What was the cost of the furniture and decorations in those already occupied?

Mr. Prentice: The figures referred to have been given. I think that the pro-

vision of these residences in Admiralty House was a sensible use of a building of great historic and architectural interest. It made sense that someone should live there. This was a decision made by the Tory Government, but they wanted to provide only one residence there and we took a more democratic view and turned it into two residences.

Mr. Allason: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider providing an official residence for the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)?

Mr. Shinwell: Since this matter has been raised without my having received any notice, may I ask my right hon. Friend, when these matters about official residences for Ministers, grace and favour residences and so on are raised, whether we can go into the whole subject and see how it affects the friends of many hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Prentice: I would always be glad to debate any of these matters. As to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I think we have had plenty of evidence that he is well able to take care of himself.

Mr. Hogg: There is not much grace and favour about him!

Whitehall Buildings (Members' Visit)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he will make available for inspection by hon. Members those historic buildings in Whitehall, other than Downing Street and Barry's Treasury, which have been the subject of recent works of reconstruction and repair.

Mr. Prentice: A visit to the Banqueting House, 36, Whitehall, and the ground floor of Admiralty House has been arranged for the morning of Tuesday, 28th February.

Mr. Cooke: Why does this visit have to stop on the ground floor? May we not be allowed to see the whole of the building and discover what goes on there?

Mr. Prentice: The obvious answer, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, is that we are talking about people's homes. I think that he and some of his hon. Friends


might stop being so mean about this. I think they are showing a rather mean spirit in harping on this particular subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Members' Facilities

Mr. Molloy: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the progress with the provision of Members' facilities, with particular regard to additional desk space and rooms.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): The Star Chamber Court building is now occupied mainly by Ministers and members of the Shadow Cabinet. There are five double rooms for Members on the top floor. Accommodation has, however, been released elsewhere in the precincts, and this amounts to 64 additional places which are being reallocated to private Members. In addition, 38 desks are being provided in the Cloisters. In all, therefore, there are 112 additional places now available for private Members.

Mr. Molloy: Whilst we are all grateful for small mercies—I believe I am speaking for all hon. Members on both sides of the House—would not my right hon. Friend declare that it is the intention of the present Government ultimately to provide every Member with a room? Will he understand that we want these rooms not for any personal comfort but so that we can be more efficient Members of Parliament so far as our constituencies are concerned and so that we may have an opportunity to study properly the great events which involve everybody in this country whom we represent?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, of course, one appreciates the needs of hon. Members. I would only add that we ought to provide rooms only for those who need them. Some do not need them. Apart from that, my hon. Friend knows that the Services Committee is actively concerned with the possibility of providing a new building. The particular problem which now concerns us is the site of the new building to make sure that it is really useful to Members and not merely an unuseful adjunct.

Sir G. Nabarro: Why does the right hon. Gentleman seek to sort out Members into those who are supposed to need rooms and those who are supposed not to need them? Is he not aware that many Members are driven from the precincts of the Palace of Westminster elsewhere to seek accommodation because there is no proper accommodation for them here?

Mr. Crossman: I am indeed aware of that. All I said was that in view of the difficulties we have experienced, in the first instance we ought to limit our plans to those who need and say they need extra room. That is not true of every Member of this House.

Strangers' Gallery

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Lord President of the Council what arrangements he is making for the use of the Strangers' Gallery during morning sittings of this honourable House.

Mr. Crossman: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave to similar Questions on Monday, 23rd January.—[Vol. 739, cc. 967–969.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not one of those answers, with its reference to the hours which would have to be worked by doorkeepers, indicate that the Government expect that we shall not sit any less late at night by reason of sitting in the mornings? Is not the organisation of our business in a way that the Government think will not interest the public sufficiently to make them want to attend, bringing this House into contempt? Is that the object?

Mr. Crossman: It is not. I am prepared to explain briefly to the right hon. Gentleman the case for morning sittings. We are putting our less important business on two nights a week in two mornings, on the ground that this is of convenience to most Members of this House. Business varies in importance and popularity and we have put this business in the mornings.

Mr. Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend any idea why hon. Members opposite are opposed to morning sittings?

Mr. Crossman: I think the brief answer to that question is, "Yes".

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate figure of the number of members of the public who come round the Chamber in the mornings? Does he realise that these morning sittings will mean cutting at least two mornings out of the four when the public can visit the Chamber and that these members of the public will want to go into the Gallery? What is h going to do about it?

Mr. Crossman: Of course, it is true that when we use our Chamber the public cannot walk through it, but we must regard the use of the Chamber by the House as the first priority. We are not just a museum. We are a live place. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman says that I ought to be preoccupied with the thought that if we were not working here the public would be able to walk through and look at this place as a dead museum, I am not impressed.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has understood the point of my hon. Friend's question. He was complaining of the closure of the Galleries during the public sittings of the House in the mornings, not of the filling of the Chamber.

Mr. Crossman: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. A second question arises, and it is something on which the Services Committee, comprising people of all parties, are now reflecting. I believe that in the summer we may have a number of members of the public who would normally have walked through the House and who will request seats in the Gallery. In that case, of course, we must find room for them. They will come, however, not to walk through but to study and listen to our debates. They must, therefore, be treated as people who want to listen to the debates. For those we have made provision, and I repeat that if we have underestimated the demand, as I hope we have, we shall ensure that the public have adequate provision in the Gallery.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on an early occasion.

Mr. Maddan: asked the Lord President of the Council, with regard to admis-

sion to the 155 seats in the Strangers' Gallery, whether he will invite the Services Committee to examine the present system whereby those given cards by high commissions and embassies, who can each give four cards a day, have priority over those in the public queue, with a view to arranging that only the first 20 people to present such cards will be given priority, others taking their place with the general public.

Mr. Crossman: The arrangements for admitting all categories of visitors to the Gallery involve a delicate balance between the space available and the many and conflicting demands. This balance has been reached after many years of experience, and it would be unwise to upset it.

Mr. Maddan: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a system that started in 1912 when there were fewer embassies and high commissions than there are now, is not necessarily the right system for the present time'? Furthermore, does he not agree that we should restrict the privilege of entry and of easy access to the Strangers' Gallery to the nationals of those countries which grant similar advantages to our nationals in their Parliaments?

Mr. Crossman: No, I would not agree. I think that the education of people in the practice of democracy should be offered to those who do not practise it as well as to those who do. I would have thought that we should not now cut down the facilities we are providing for embassies and high commissions, provided that we can ensure that the public have their fair share.

Mr. Hogg: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received from his own side of the House representations from Members with constituencies in London, about the immense shortage of tickets for members of the public who apply to their Members, who may be five or six months or more in arrear with their lists?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I have indeed, but this does not affect morning sittings at all. It affects the fact that we have got—though it varies from debate to debate—increased public interest in listening to our debates.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has nothing to do with morning sittings?

Mr. Crossman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that in order to get more of the public in, we should cut out visitors from overseas, there is here a balance which has been established, and I should like a lot more evidence before I could agree to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion. I will certainly discuss this point with the Services Committee—an all-party Committee—to see whether we agree that there is a case for cutting back what we have available for people from overseas.

Members (Physical, Exercise)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Lord President of the Council if, in view of the detrimental effect on health of the long hours spent by Members of Parliament in the Commons building, he will make provision for a health room, with some gymnasic apparatus, relaxators, and health lamps to enable Members of Parliament to keep fit.

Mr. Crossman: As my predecessor said in answer to a Question on 22nd June, 1966, there is no space in the Palace of Westminster for providing facilities for Members to take physical exercise. However, there is a case for such facilities being provided and this will certainly be looked at in relation to the plans for the proposed new Parliamentary building.—[Vol. 730, c. 579–80.]

Mrs. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even quite modest provision of this kind would be welcomed, particularly by younger Members who complain about the enervating atmosphere and lack of facilities for exercise here? Perhaps even my right hon. Friend himself might like to limber up before some of his confrontations with his more spirited right hon. Friends?

Mr. Crossman: This is something I might consider, though there are different ways to limber up for spiritual contest.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Is not most of this physical effort done by the Labour Party in its own committee rooms?

Mr. Rankin: Does my right hon. Friend recall that these facilities for physical ex-

Ercise—chest expansion and so forth—were provided some time ago and, as a result, because of the exhaustion produced among Members, attendances in the Chamber were actually affected?

Mr. Crossman: I was not aware that all facilities were provided; I knew that some were provided of a somewhat occasional kind.

Library (Appointments)

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to ensure that in advertising vacancies and making appointments of professional staff to the House of Commons Library, more emphasis is placed on the value of a professional qualification in librarianship.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I have been asked to reply.
This matter is at present being considered by the Library Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and my hon. Friend will, no doubt, be willing to await the results of this inquiry.

Mr. Buchanan: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Family Allowances

Mr, St. John-Stevas: asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she now has for revising the system of family allowances.

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to arrange and implement plans for improved family allowances in respect of families whose income is below the basic level laid down by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister for Social Security if she will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's intentions for dealing with the problem of child poverty.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): I would refer the hon. Members to my replies to Questions on this subject on 21st November.—[Vol. 736, c. 929–31.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Has the right hon. Lady never heard of the heart grown sick by hope deferred? Would not the best plan be to increase the payment that could be made to lower-paid workers, who constitute in a very real sense the new poor, while leaving the present system of Income Tax allowances unchanged?

Miss Herbison: This is a very complicated matter, and efforts are being made to find a proper solution so that we shall get rid of poverty among children everywhere.

Mr. Dean: Last Monday, the right hon. Lady told the House that she was studying the inquiry into family circumstances but that the report would not be published till May or June. Why should there be this long delay, and does she intend to take action before publication of the report?

Miss Herbison: The full report has not yet come to me; in other words, we have to wait till all the work is done on the report. But I have already told the House of what I regarded as the most important information brought forward from the study of these families in order that we might use it in our study of how best to help the poorest in the country.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend do her best to speed up the examination of the whole subject so that any proposed overhaul of the family allowances scheme, which would be greatly welcomed by many Members on this side, could come into operation at about the time of the Budget?

Miss Herbison: I assure my hon. Friend that no one is more deeply concerned than the Government or myself about this, and we are dealing with it as urgently as possible.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Could the right hon. Lady give us information on two points: are any special factors being disclosed in relation to this problem, such as bad housing or unstable families; second, is any information coming to her from the local authorities indicating special aspects of the problem in different areas, particularly the big cities?

Miss Herbison: From the report itself we have the information about financial

needs. The other social needs on which the hon. Gentleman has touched are matters on which also we are expecting a great deal of information. Not only my Department but everyone concerned with family endowment in its widest aspects is concerned with this whole study, and all of us are giving a great deal of attention to these matters.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Social Security what was the total amount of Selective Employment Tax collected in the period 5th September, 1966, to 1st January, 1967.

Miss Herbison: The total amount paid into the Exchequer on account of Selective Employment Tax up to 1st January, 1967, was £320·4 million.

Mr. Hall: Will not the Minister agree that the collection of this enormous amount of taxation from the nation's industry has not succeeded in its supposed purpose of shaking people out from services into manufacturing industry, it is creating tremendous hardship, and it will result in bankruptcies among many small firms?

Miss Herbison: I do not agree with the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but these questions are not for my Department. My Department merely collects the money. Responsibility for the economic and other aspects lies with other Ministers.

War Injuries (Mr. W. R. Walker)

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she is aware that Mr. W. R. Walker of Huntingdon, who received injuries from gunshot of the right arm and the scalp in the First World War while on active service and was badly gassed, has received only a lump sum interim payment of £220 12s., and that his condition has worsened with age; and whether she will take steps to have the case reopened with a view to ensuring that Mr. Walker receives the pension to which he is entitled and back-payments thereof.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): Mr. Walker was


examined again as recently as 12th January. The injuries to his scalp and right arm, which were found to be causing no disablement on his discharge, are still assessed at less than 20 per cent. Compensation for this degree of disablement is paid by way of a gratuity, not a pension, and no question of arrears arises. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that Mr. Walker's chest trouble, for which he first claimed in 1964, is unrelated to gassing or any other factor of his 1914 war service.

Sir D. Renton: Does it not appear that this gentleman is being penalised because he waited till he was advanced in years and found that the injuries had caused him a great deal of trouble before making a claim? Will the hon. Gentleman consider the matter afresh, and very sympathetically?

Mr. Loughlin: We are always willing sympathetically to consider any claim for war pension. I do not accept a word that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. It is very difficult to discuss these problems across the Floor at Question Time. As he knows, I am always available to Members, and I shall discuss it with him if he so desires.

Supplementary Pensions

Mr. Weatherill: asked the Minister of Social Security if she is aware that her personal message to retired people, in the form of a newspaper advertisement, was inaccurate and misleading to pensioners who are in receipt of income other than retirement pension or other National Insurance benefits, such as those who receive maintenance payments; and what action she will take.

Miss Herbison: If my message about supplementary pensions was to be effective, it had to be short and simple. I am sorry that a constituent of the hon. Member should have been misled, but the message did advise readers to get the guide and claim form S.P.1 and in this leaflet the position about maintenance payments is clearly stated.

Mr. Weatherill: Is it not wrong for the right hon. Lady to issue messages in the Press which are totally inaccurate? She said in her message that

Up to £2 of any part-time earnings will be ignored. So will at least £1 of other income …
Will not she agree with my constituent who says that even small promises by this Government should be taken with a pinch of salt?

Miss Herbison: No, I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman's constituent. The advertisement clearly stated,
I cannot of course tell you all about the scheme here. But you can easily find out more by getting the guide and claim form S.P.1 ".
The fact that 600,000 new applications were made and two-thirds of those have been successful shows that the vast majority of people would not agree with the hon. Gentleman's constituent.

Bronchitis

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Social Security (1) what is the approximate annual cost of the sickness benefits, supplementary benefits, and any other payments from public funds to persons suffering from chronic or occasional bronchial disorders;
(2) what is the approximate annual cost in time and production lost of the absence from work of persons suffering from chronic or occasional bronchial disorders.

Miss Herbison: I have information only about days for which sickness benefit is claimed, and the latest figures are for the 53 weeks from 1st June, 1964, to 5th June, 1965, in which the estimated number of days of incapacity attributed to bronchitis was 36½million, and the cost in sickness benefit was about £26 million.
I regret that it is not possible to say how much was paid by way of noncontributory benefits, or other benefits for which I am responsible, to persons suffering from bronchitis.
I understand that no information about the cost in loss of production is available.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Social Security how much would be needed to restore retirement pensions to the position they had relative to those in industry when the last pension increase was made.

Miss Herbison: I regret that insufficient material is available about the many and diverse occupational pension schemes in industry to allow such comparisons to be made.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister frightened to give that comparison, because have not the pensions deteriorated relative to those of industry more during that period than in any similar period since 1945?

Miss Herbison: No, Sir. If the information were available I should be delighted to give it, but the hon. Gentleman must know of the great variety of occupational pension schemes in this country, and he will also know that some of these pensions—perhaps for many thousands of people—are of a miserable a mount.

MARYLEBONE CRICKET CLUB (SOUTH AFRICAN TOUR)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ALAN LEE WILLIAMS: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of grants arising from international sport with South Africa; and if he will make a statement about the present position.

Mr. RHODES: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the discussions which have taken place between the Government and the Marylebone Cricket Club on the proposed cricket tour of South Africa in the winter of 1968–69.

Mr. WINNICK: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the official discussions which he has had with the Marylebone Cricket Club on the proposed South African tour.

Mr. FISHER: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the discussions which Her Majesty's Government have had with the Marylebone Cricket Club on their forthcoming tour of South Africa.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): With the permission of Mr. Speaker, I would now like to answer Questions Nos. 83, 84, 85 and 86.
Normally Government grant is made, where appropriate, to enable national amateur teams from Britain to take part in international sporting events overseas. However, the Government do not aid teams wishing to participate in events overseas in circumstances involving racial discrimination, and no application for Government financial assistance towards sports visits to South Africa has been agreed to, or will be entertained.
On the broader issue of the proposed M.C.C. tour in South Africa in 1968–69, the House will understand that the Government have no responsibility—nor do they wish to have responsibility—for the activities of the governing bodies of sport or such organisations as the M.C.C. The Government understand that, so far, there has been no official discussion between the South African Cricket Association and the M.C.C. concerning details of the proposed tour, and in any event such tours do not receive Government grant.
Informal discussions have been held between the Government and representatives of the M.C.C. and indeed, some months ago, its Secretary outlined its policy in this matter. The M.C.C. has informed the Government that the team to tour South Africa will be chosen on merit and in this respect any preconditions that the host country lay down will be totally disregarded. The Government are confident that if, when the time comes, any player chosen for the touring side were to be rejected by the host country, then there would be no question but that the M.C.C. would find such a condition wholly unacceptable and the projected tour would be abandoned.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I welcome my hon. Friend's forthright reply, but could he tell us how many applications for grants his Department has received? Could not this entire matter be considered by the Sports Council? Is it not a matter for that body?

Mr. Howell: There have been six such applications for grants which have not been agreed, but the Sports Council was


consulted when the Government determined its policy. It thought that it would wish to be entirely dominated by sporting considerations, but advised the Government that it fully understood that in this matter there were much wider considerations which were for the Government alone.

Mr. Rhodes: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, in view of the previous statement by the South African Minister of the Interior, the statement he has just made clearly implies that if D'Oliveira is selected the tour will be cancelled? Does that not severely prejudice D'Oliveira's position and embarrass him? In the circumstances, would it not be better for the Government to say to the M.C.C. that if the South African Minister of the Interior does not immediately withdraw his statement notice should be immediately given by the M.C.C. that the tour is off?

Mr. Howell: There are certain matters within the realm of Government, and I hope that I have convinced the House that we are motivated only by first principles. There are other considerations outside our scope which are for the governing bodies of sport. All of us would agree that the gentleman concerned is a very fine cricketer and gentleman and graces the field of sport well. It is regrettable that he should be put in an embarrassing position by speeches elsewhere.

Mr. Winnick: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it would be degrading for cricket, sport and this country if the Nazi race laws of South Africa were accepted as a condition of selection of players by the M.C.C.?

Mr. Howell: I hope that I have fully convinced the House that the M.C.C. will not accept such considerations.

Mr. Fisher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members, irrespective of party, warmly welcome his statement and the attitude of the M.C.C., that we would all like to press that that attitude will continue, and that race should never be the criterion, only merit, when our touring teams are selected?

Mr. Hogg: Does not the independent and proper attitude of the Marylebone

Cricket Club—[Laughter.]—endorse the view that it is independent not merely of the South African Government but also the British Government, and should remain so?

Mr. Howell: I do not know whether that question was intended to be a long hop or a full toss. We all recognise the right hon. and learned Gentleman's special responsibilities, and I think that his declaration of independence is warmly accepted.

MALTA

Mr. Maudling: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the situation in Malta.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs is unwell. I know that the House will be sorry to hear that and will wish him a speedy recovery.
Hon. Members will recall that in a statement on 24th January my right hon. Friend described the consultations which Her Majesty's Government held with the Malta Government between August 1966 and January of this year on reductions in our forces in Malta.
On 27th January we received from the Malta Government an Aide Memoire stating that the Malta Government considered the British Government to be in fundamental breach of the Defence Agreement, and that in consequence the Malta Government regarded the British Government as having forfeited all the rights, privileges and facilities to which they were entitled under that Agreement. The Malta Government therefore called upon the British Government forthwith to take the necessary steps to cease making use of those rights, privileges and facilities.
The Defence Agreement has a term of ten years and cannot, in the absence of a fundamental breach by either party, lawfully be terminated before that time except by mutual agreement. Her Majesty's Government cannot accept that they are in breach of the Agreement. On the contrary, Her Majesty's Government consider that any action by the Malta


Government purporting to terminate the Defence Agreement would be a breach by the Malta Government of their international obligations and the resulting position would be a very serious one. Her Majesty's Government are entirely satisfied that the proposed rundown of British forces would not put at risk Britain's ability to honour her obligations for the defence of Malta or alter her determination to do so. Her Majesty's Governrnent also consider that they have fully discharged their obligations under the Defence Agreement to consult the Malta Government.
The Prime Minister of Malta made a statement in the Maltese House of Representatives on 27th January setting out in more detail the Malta Government's reasons for claiming that the British Government is in fundamental breach of the Defence Agreement. After making this statement the Prime Minister moved the first reading of a bill to amend the 1966 Visiting Forces Act. I have not yet received details of the form this amendment would take.
Our High Commissioner in Valletta has reported that demonstrations have taken place there during the past few days. There have been no reports of any violence.
Her Majesty's Government are urgently considering the situation created by the Malta Government's Aide Memoire and the action contemplated by the Malta Government in amending the Visiting Forces Act. Meanwhile, I must emphasise that Her Majesty's Government regard the Defence Agreement as being still in force and the status of the British forces and civilians in Malta unchanged. They earnestly hope however that the present difference of view will not lead to the Malta Government taking, any irrevocable action in relation to the Defence Agreement, which they still believe to be mutually advantageous.
The Prime Minister of Malta made a statement in the Maltese House of Representatives on 27th January setting out in more detail the Malta Government's reasons for claiming that the British Government are in fundamental breach of the Defence Agreement. After making this statement, the Prime Minister moved the first reading of a Bill to amend the 1966 Visiting Forces Act. I have not

yet received details of the form this amendment would take.
Our High Commissioner in Valetta has reported that demonstrations have taken place there during the past few days. There have been no reports of any violence.
Her Majesty's Government are urgently considering the situation created by the Malta Government's Aide Memoire and the action contemplated by the Malta Government in amending the Visiting Forces Act. Meanwhile, I must emphasise that Her Majesty's Government regard the Defence Agreement as being still in force and the status of the British forces and civilians in Malta unchanged. They earnestly hope, however, that the present difference of view will not lead to the Malta Government taking any irrevocable action in relation to the Defence Agreement, which Her Majesty's Government still believe to be mutually advantageous.

Mr. Maudling: I thank the Minister for that statement and would express the hope that his right hon. Friend will make a speedy recovery.
I should like to question the hon. Gentleman on two points. First, is he aware that on this side of the House we feel very great concern about the damage to the economy of Malta and, in particular, about the feelings of the Maltese that they have been let down by the British Government? Second, as this is a matter too serious and too complex to he handled easily by question and answer, and as an all-party C.P.A. delegation has just returned from Malta with which I am sure we shall all want to consult, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will speak urgently to the Leader of the House and ask him to arrange an early debate, if necessary by rearranging business?

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my right hon. Friend.
While I do not accept for one moment the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, because there have been very full consultations, I will, of course, consult the Leader of the House. It is a matter for the Leader of the House rather than for me as to when or if a debate shall take place.

Mr. Sandys: Without going into the legal aspects of this question, is the Minister aware that a drastic reduction in Service expenditure would upset one of the basic assumptions on which financial aid to Malta was calculated at the time of independence, and do the Government realise that by their mean and shabby behaviour they are strengthening the hands of those in Malta who would like to offer this strategically important base to Russia or Egypt?

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman follows his usual custom of using strong language on an occasion when all of us want to be careful and considerate in what we say. All the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman has used have obviously been very much to the fore in the consideration which has been going on over several months.

Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would be a very great pity if this were to degenerate into an ordinary interparty quarrel, since the concern to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) referred, and the affection for Malta and its people, are felt equally on this side of the House? Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a tragic and potentially very dangerous situation, and would he be good enough to ask his right hon. Friend to receive the five hon. Members who have just returned from Malta in order to hear what we were able to find out there in the course of a very intensive weekend's discussions?

Mr. Thomas: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend, who has just returned from Malta. I also believe that it would be wrong for the House to press me today to go any further than I have already gone on this question. Naturally, I will ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will receive the five-Member delegation, and I have no doubt in my mind that that customary courtesy will be extended.

Mr. Heath: As the Minister of State has asked not to be pressed further today, and as great concern has now been expressed from both sides of the House, could the Leader of the House perhaps give an assurance that he will be willing, through the usual channels, to rearrange business for the end of this week so that we may have a debate after

we have had the opportunity of talking to the all-party delegation which has returned and after, we hope, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs has been able to receive it?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr.. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir; we shall certainly be prepared to consider, through the usual channels, the views that have been expressed. As I stressed on Thursday, I consider this a matter of high priority, but the exact timing of the debate must be left to the usual channels.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister of State aware that the Defence Treaty is a very vague document? Will he now, with good will, enter into immediate negotion with the Malta Government to ensure that the situation does not escalate into high tempers, which could well happen, and which some of us know about having just returned with the delegation from Malta?

Mr. Thomas: We are all anxious that there shall be no escalation into high feeling and that no rigid attitudes shall be adopted. It is for that reason that I have asked the House not to press me any further today.

Mr. Fisher: Would the hon. Gentleman always bear in mind—I have just returned from Malta, too—the strength and unanimity of feeling in Malta from the Governor-General to the boot boy in the hotel, and the very serious effect on the level of unemployment in Malta? Will he consider whether it is really worth the relatively small financial saving if it means incurring this great unemployment and the very serious effect upon Anglo-Maltese relations, which have always been so good? Is he aware that if he would consider opening talks again with the Prime Minister of Malta with a view to phasing the withdrawal out over a somewhat longer period this would be greatly appreciated?

Mr. Thomas: We acknowledge that this is a very serious problem for Malta. The House will remember that we have already altered the proposals substantially as a result of representations from the Malta Government. This has added millions to our bill, and that should be remembered. But we have gone further


and offered to give as much technical advice and help as we can in dealing with the problem of unemployment that arises.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dickens.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend—

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Government have said that they are prepared to give time for a debate after consultations through the usual channels, should that not now close any further discussion here this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members may have some points which they wish to put in this way, especially those hon. Members who have just come back from Malta. Mr. Dickens.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the essence of the situation in Malta is for the Government to reaffirm that it remains their policy to ensure that the unemployment created by the defence rundown to 1970 is phased in such a way as to tie in with the creation of employment opportunities which result from the growing industrial and commercial development in the island?

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend made clear to the House on 24th January that the long-term economic prospects for Malta are good. There are encouraging signs. We have offered to do all that we can to help in the difficult period which arises due to the early redundancies.

Mr. John Page: Is the Minister of State, with his great knowledge of industrial depression, personally aware of the rate of unemployment benefit in Malta, which is under £3 per week for a married man irrespective of the number of children, and that the new policies must result in an unemployment rate of between 15 and 20 per cent. long term over the next six or seven years? Does he not feel it incumbent on him to do all he can to mitigate the agony which could be brought upon this friendly country by the policy of his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has spoken in moving terms of a human

problem. I was brought up in the Rhondda Valley at the time of the depression. I therefore need no persuading of the difficulties and hardships of unemployment. But I am entirely satisfied that Her Majesty's Government have done and are willing to do all they can to help Malta during this difficult period.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will he consider publishing a White Paper giving the exchanges of both sides in order to enable the House to be kept informed? Will he also give the economics of the figures—such as £14 million now and £8 million eventually—to be spent? How much, for example, will find its way back here? That is the sort of information we would like.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may be sure that I shall bring his suggestion to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: While fully appreciating and sympathising with the considerations which have led the Government to cut down military expenditure in Malta, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not agree that these considerations apply with even greater force and, indeed, greater priority to our forces in Germany? Could we not take the same action in Germany as in Malta? If that led to a renunciation of the agreement between Britain and West Germany, many of us on this side of the House would welcome that result.

Mr. Thomas: Happily for me, I am dealing with but one subject this afternoon. My hon. Friend will have to pursue that question in another direction.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Douglas Jay—Statement.

Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the moment for the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to move such a Motion. Mr. Jay—Statement.

Later—

Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for having jumped the gun earlier, but I must ask leave to


move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the critical situation in Malta arising from Her Majesty's Government's policy.
I know that we have had some sort of commitment from the Leader of the House about an early debate, but I do not think that it is realised sufficiently how very urgent is this matter.
It is a definite matter because, following the Secretary of State's statement in the House last Tuesday, the Prime Minister of Malta has called upon Her Majesty's Government forthwith to cease making use of the rights, privileges and facilities under the Visiting Forces Act. It is urgent because on Wednesday of this week in the Malta Parliament amending legislation to the Visiting Forces Act will be introduced. I understand that it is possible for there to be a Second and Third Reading on that day. If that legislation is passed by the Maltese Government on Wednesday of this week, what is likely to happen? Will our troops be withdrawn? If they do, it will be a disaster for Malta. Will they stay, in which case this will hurt Malta's pride and will lead to all manner of very strong and nasty incidents? Will they then stay and have all this trouble cast upon them and upon the Maltese-British relationships?
I fear that once the Maltese Government have taken this action on Wednesday, the British Government will go back into the groove and say, "We cannot negotiate under duress". In order that this matter can be debated fully in the House before Wednesday, when it is to be discussed in the Maltese Parliament, it is necessary to get an earlier and firmer commitment from the Government about their intentions about consultation. Without at this stage expressing any opinion about the rights and wrongs of the argument between the British Government and the Maltese Government, I must and do beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member begs leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,

the critical situation in Malta arising from Her Majesty's Government's policy.
First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in letting me know this morning that he intended to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 9.
This is the kind of occasion on which the operation of Standing Order No. 9 might well have been invoked, despite some technical difficulties to which I gave earnest consideration this morning with my advisers. But I have now to take account of the undertaking of the Leader of the House regarding the rearrangement of business and the exchange which has taken place in the House in the last quarter of an hour or so. In view of that announcement, I do not think that it would be appropriate to anticipate an early date by allowing a Standing Order No. 9 Motion today.

MONOPOLIES COMMISSION (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): Over the past year it has been increasingly suggested that there may be restrictive practices in the professions which are contrary to the public interest. I have therefore decided to ask the Monopolies Commission to investigate this matter and to make a general report to me under the extended powers in Section 5 of the Monopolies and Mergers Act, 1965. The Commission will be asked to consider such questions as restrictions on entry into a profession, the practice of charging standard fees or commissions for professional services, the terms or conditions on which professional services are to be supplied, and restrictions on advertising. I am circulating the full terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The intention is that the Commission should conduct as comprehensive a survey as possible of all professions, omitting from consideration practices which are expressly authorised by Statute or Royal Charter. The precise method of handling the inquiry will be a matter for the Commission and they can be relied upon to keep it within manageable bounds. They will however be asked to report to me on the extent of the specified practices, if any, in professional services; whether these practices operate against the public


interest; and, if so, what remedies they propose.
This request to the Commission does not in any way overlap with the activities of the National Board for Prices and Incomes or preclude references to that body of the level of particular professional charges. The possibility of certain references of this kind to the N.B.P.I. is, indeed, being considered.

Mr. Corfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, just as we supported the provisions under which this reference is made, we welcome this reference in principle? The term "professions" covers a very wide range of services with an equally wide range of characteristics. Will he consider being very much more precise in the terms of reference to the Commission, bearing in mind that there are wide differences of opinion even as to what is a profession and what is not? The right hon. Gentleman has only to refer to a number of dictionaries to find that there are even wide variations among them.
Secondly, in referring to the terms of reference—of which he kindly gave me a copy—the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that one of the restrictions to which the Commission is referred is the restriction on entry by way of examination. Yet, in the second paragraph of the terms of reference, he makes it clear that, although this should be regarded as restrictive, the Commission must not look into the standards of examination. This is a contradiction in terms. If the Commission is to decide whether these qualifications by examination are in the public interest, surely the Commission must look at the examinations.

Mr. Jay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the inquiry generally. As to his first point—this is an inquiry into practices and not into professions as such. We have, therefore, specified precisely the practices concerned in the terms of reference, and it will be the duty of the Commission to inquire into those practices wherever they exist. We did not think that it would be possible to define the professions as such. We think that that is better left to the Commission.
Secondly, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree on reflection that there is not a contradiction here. It will not be

for the Commission to try and specify exact standards for entry into an individual profession. It might, however, be within its competence to take a view on whether entry into a profession should be controlled wholly by that profession itself or by some independent authority. There is no real contradiction here.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear whether or not the inquiry will also investigate the practices of the legal profession, including the Bar and the solicitors?

Mr. Jay: I thought that I had made it clear in my statement that no profession as such is excluded from the inquiry.

Mr. Heath: It is interesting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the definition of "professions". But that is not what he said in his statement. From my own experience, I recognise the difficulties of definitions of this kind, but the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Commission to consider such questions as restrictions on entry into a profession, not merely restrictions on entry. Therefore, either the right hon. Gentleman or the Commission must define what is meant by "profession". Is it not the case that consideration of restrictions on entry means that the inquiry can go into the whole range of trade union restriction on entry as well? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not solved this dilemma in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), and I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Jay: I did not attempt to define "profession", and we are seeking not to do so. We think it wiser to define the practices and leave it to the discretion of the Commission to decide where the practices lie. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, trade union restrictions are covered by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

Mr. C. Pannell: Since my right hon. Friend suggests that there are no limits at all, will the inquiry extend to the world's oldest profession.

Mr. Jay: I am quite prepared to leave that to the Commission.

Sir Knox Cunningham: When may we expect the report to be made? Does the right hon. Gentleman include M.P.s in the professions?

Mr. Jay: I would expect this to take a reasonable period—something up to two years.

Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend and constituent aware of the extremely warm welcome given to his announcement of this long overdue inquiry by right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, including those belonging to the professions? Will the Restrictive Practices Court now also entertain professional charges and services?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. The Court, under present legislation, is confined to goods. We felt that there was here a gap that should be covered, and that is why we have asked the Commission to undertake the inquiry.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I think that this is a lot of nonsense? Does the inquiry include the Church?

Mr. Jay: I have already tried to make it clear that we are not attempting to define the professions. The Commission, which has a lawyer as Chairman and includes a number of professional men, will be perfectly competent to do that.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be greeted with considerable relief by the Liberal Party, since we have for long advocated such an inquiry and welcome his initiative? Can we hope for an early report followed by early legislation?

Mr. Jay: I am always grateful for the hon. Member's support. I can only say that I hope that both the report and the legislation will come as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Mr. Pavitt: If there is to be an examination of fees, will relating fees to the total cost of a project be within the purview of the Commission to make sure that there is not just an increase according to the rise in the cost of labour?

Mr. Jay: I emphasise again that we are asking the Commission to inquire

into certain restrictive practices, which are defined. If what my hon. Friend says comes under that heading, then certainly it would be within the terms of reference.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Although the right hon. Gentleman will not define a profession, will he say whether the inquiry will relate to professional people who are nevertheless employed persons and not merely those who are acting independently?

Mr. Jay: I would certainly say that an individual would not be automatically excluded because he was employed and not self-employed.

Following are the terms of reference:
Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965
Request for General Report on Restrictive
Practices affecting Professional Services
The Board of Trade in pursuance of the powers conferred upon them by section 5 of the Monopolies and Mergers Act, 1965, hereby require the Monopolies Commission (hereafter called "the Commission") to submit to the Board a report on the general effect on the public interest of the following practices so far as they prevail in relation to the supply of professional services, that is to say practices which are restrictive of—

(a) entry into a profession;
(b) the fees or commissions to be charged for the supply of such services;
(c) the rendering of such services by or on behalf of bodies corporate or by persons acting in partnership;
(d) the persons to whom, or the circumstances in which, such services are to be supplied;
(e) the terms or conditions on which, or the manner in which or extent to which, such services are to be supplied;
(f) the carrying on of any other business by persons supplying such services or the commercial relationship of such persons with others engaged in other activities;
(g) the extent to which, if at all, persons supplying such services may advertise.

Provided that the Commission shall not report on practices expressly authorised by or under any enactment or Royal Charter.
2. For the purposes of this instrument the practice of limiting entry to a profession to persons who pass examinations designed to test their proficiency shall be regarded as a practice restricting entry into that profession but the Commission shall not report on the standard of proficiency required for entry into any profession.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you please advise me about how I can raise an urgent question about a constituent of mine who has been imprisoned in the Congo since May. He had his trial annulled in December because his defending barrister was arrested. I have twice asked for a Private Notice Question on this matter, but—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is completely out of order now. He must not raise under the guise of a point of order a question which he wished to raise as a Private Notice Question but which Mr. Speaker disallowed. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a Question on this subject on the Order Paper today. The hon. Member is troubled, as many hon. Members are troubled, because the Question was so well down the Order Paper that it could not receive an Oral Answer.
I have had no notice from the Minister that he wished to give an Oral Answer to that Question at the end of Question Time, so the hon. Gentleman must wait for his Written Answer to the Question, or raise the matter with the Minister. I cannot do anything further.

Mr. Ridsdale: On a further point of order. What disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is that I have to wait two months to get an Oral Answer about what I consider to be an urgent matter.

Mr. Speaker: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I went through that

experience myself for 20 years. It is the experience of every hon. Member that so many hon. Members are keen to use every facility which Parliament offers to them that the Order Paper is cluttered up with Questions. The Chair cannot, however, solve that problem. The hon. Gentleman must take up the matter with the Minister.

Mr. Bessell: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) based his submission to you, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is too late now. In any case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not about to challenge the refusal by the Chair of a Standing Order No. 9 Motion.

Mr. Bessell: On a further point of order. I had no intention whatever of challenging your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was about to ask you for guidance, but I will let the point pass.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will come and ask for guidance some time, I shall be happy to give it to him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock and, in the case of every Question which under the provisions of paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) Mr. Speaker is directed to put forthwith at Ten o'clock, he shall this day put such Question forthwith so soon as the House has entered upon the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series],—considered.

Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with a new piece of procedure. In voting on the Supplementary Estimates, for the first time the House would be using the new procedure to which it agreed on 14th December. This new procedure will be found in Standing Order No. 18 (7), and hon. Members can find it in the Votes and Proceedings and in HANSARD for 14th December.
In accordance with this, not less than two days' notice has been given of the Votes which have been put down for consideration, but no hon. Member has given notice of intention to declare himself with the Noes upon the putting of the Question in any of these Votes. I am therefore entitled, if I think fit and if the House consents, to put one single Question in respect of the total amount of all these Votes outstanding for the year ending 31st March, 1967. If I have the consent of the House, I will put that Question.

CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1966–1967

Motion made,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £160,868,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1967 for the services included in Civil Estimates 1966–67. Supplementary Estimates (H.C.227) and Defence (Royal Ordnance Factories) Supplementary Estimates 1966–67 (H.C.233).

Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question forthwith, pursuant to order.

Question agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. MacDermot.

CONSOLIDATED FUND

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1967, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES (DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' PAY)

4.10 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I beg to move,
That this House condemns as an open breach of faith the Government's decision not to implement the Grigg pay increases for Service doctors and dentists from 1st April, 1966.
As the House knows, under the Grigg recommendations of 1958, the pay and allowances of all ranks in all three Services come under biennial review, and account is taken of changes in certain civilian earnings. This sensible system has encouraged recruiting and built up a measure of trust between the Armed Forces and the Government. The Grigg formula was fully applied in 1960 and in 1964, but in 1962 it was reluctantly decided that the Services' pay award must be introduced in two stages because of the country's economic circumstances, and so in that year Service men were all subjected to a temporary tightening of belts, as was the whole nation, and while naturally browned-off, they grinned and bore it.
This case is altogether different. Last spring, the Grigg formula was fully applied, but it is now known that a harsh and discriminatory exception has been made touching two small branches of the Services. They number fewer than 1,000 doctors and fewer than 400 dentists. They have a special claim upon our time just because they are so few in number and can neither fight for themselves nor voice their complaint in public. With no trade union behind them, they look to the Secretary of State—I am sorry not to see him in his place—and the three Service Ministers to be their champions [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is Powell?"] My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is right beside me.
For very good reasons, into which I will not now go, when National Service ended 1962 it was recognised that doctors and dentists would not enlist in sufficient numbers in the Services unless Service careers offered financial compensations. So, after discussions between the Government and the British Medical Association, it was decided as a matter of policy that the pay of Service doctors and


dentists would have to be weighted in their favour. New rates of pay were announced which made the average earnings of general duty medical officers approximately 15 per cent. higher than the average earnings, less necessary expenses, of general practitioners. This differential, eliminated by the 1963 National Health Service award, was broadly restored when Service pay was increased under the Grigg formula in the next year, 1964.
But an award of 9 per cent. to general practitioners in February, 1965, eroded this lead to a serious extent; it was narrowed to roughly 5 per cent. There was every reason to expect that the 1966 pay award to the Services would be the occasion for restoring the differential again, especially as recruiting figures—and I emphasise that—for general duty medical officers were now declining seriously. I shall give the figures later to show that.
In February, last year, after a lot of humming and hawing, the Government announced a pay award of 12½ per cent. on the total emoluments of the Armed Forces to take effect from 1st April. At that time, the Kindersley Review Body was formulating a new pay structure for civilian doctors and dentists and it was therefore no surprise to read in paragraph 4 of the White Paper on Service Pay and Pensions—and it is essential to realise this before understanding why we are moving this Motion—
Since 1962 the pay of Service medical and dental officers below the rank of Major General (and equivalent) has taken account of increases awarded to civilian doctors and dentists engaged in the National Health Service. Rates of remuneration in the National Health Service are under consideration and, in consequence, it has not been possible to include in the attached Appendices revised rates of pay for Service medical and dental officers".
The last sentence is particularly important:
Revised rates of pay, which will be effective from 1st April, 1966, will be published separately.
This was fair enough. It confirmed the Government's acceptance of the policy first adopted in 1962, and Service doctors and dentists clearly understood that they could expect the differential to be restored under the award.
The report of the Kindersley Review Body was not made known until 4th May, last year, although it had doubtless

been in the Government's hands for some time prior to that. Broadly speaking, it recommended that general practitioners in the N.H.S. should receive an average increase of around 33 per cent., payable in two instalments. It was now clear to the Service dentists and doctors, as it was to the B.M.A. and, no doubt, to the Secretary of State himself, that a pay increase approaching 40 per cent. would be needed to restore the differential of 15 per cent. I say 40 per cent, because of the N.H.S. pay award of 9 per cent. in 1965 and 33 per cent. last year.
Nearly three months passed after the Kindersley Review Body made its report, but still nothing was heard about the new rates of pay for Service doctors and dentists. Then, on 20th July, the Government made their chilling announcement of the prices and income freeze and Service doctors and dentists wondered uneasily whether this could conceivably be the excuse for breaking a firm and unequivocal promise.
I hope that the Minister of Defence intends to explain to the House why the Secretary of State did not bring the pay of Service doctors and dentists into line with that of the rest of the services by deciding, announcing and ante-dating to 1st April their new rates of pay before 20th July when the freeze was announced. He had all the information he needed as early as April. I make no apology for giving some dates and figures throughout this speech, because the whole of our case rests on them.
I hope that the Secretary of State does not intend to hide behind the provisions of Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966. Nothing which I can find in the whole of that cloudy piece of legislation, or in the White Paper on the Prices and Incomes Standstill, or, for that matter, in the White Paper on the Period of Severe Restraint, which has been called in aid in this case, barred the Secretary of State from fulfilling his contract with these officers. His duty was to keep his word to these men.
To continue the story; in October the first instalment of the increase for civilian doctors and dentists became operative, but there was still no announcement about Service doctors and dentists. There were warning signs that feeling was running high, and perhaps that was why the


Secretary of State chose 21st December to announce his decision. His Christmas message brought no tidings of great joy; far from it. First, as had been announced a week earlier in a written reply, the award was not to be backdated to 1st April but only to 1st October. It was not to be paid at once. The men have to wait until 1st July this year, 15 months after their Service colleagues enjoyed their new rates of pay and six months after their civilian counterparts received their larger and ante-dated cheques.
I would guess that the men and women concerned were prepared to be told that their award, like the civilian award, would be in two instalments if, as they fully expected, the amount was considerable. But the amount of the award came as just as big a shock to Service medical and dental officers as did the post-dating, and it came as a shock, too, to the British Medical Association, whose advice and experience has been available to the Government throughout the discussions. It may also come as a shock to some hon. Members, who have not had an opportunity to follow these matters in detail.
The award was not the best for which they had hoped—some 40 per cent. It was not 30 per cent., nor even 20 per cent. But it could hardly be less, it was thought, than the 12½ per cent. granted to the other branches of the Services. In fact, it was less. The award was a once-for-all 10 per cent., which I can describe only as a deliberate slight and a calculated act of victimisation.
On 18th January this year, in a Parliamentary Question, I asked the Secretary of State to explain his breach of faith and so gave him an opportunity to enlist understanding if not forgiveness. I was told in a curt answer that referred to the "disappointment" of these officers—surely the understatement of the year so far—that in the light of present economic measures
it would be wrong to make an exception in this case".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 5.]
It would indeed be wrong, but this is exactly what has been done to these people. The Secretary of State has treated them neither as doctors nor as Service men and has singled them out for discriminatory treatment. Their

incomes now compare unfavourably, instead of favourably, with National Health Service general practitioners.
This change of policy—for that is what it was—will bring dire results. Dentists are at present up to strength in the Navy and the Air Force, although they are about 15 per cent. below strength in the Army. None the less, the British Dental Association has expressed serious misgivings about the future. The present state of recruiting of Service doctors, however, is already grave, and the British Medical Association has warned the Government that they must now expect it to be even worse.
So serious is the situation that the B.M.A. has asked the Prime Minister for an opportunity to explain to him its "grave disquiet"—and I am quoting the association's words. I am today asking the Minister to give an assurance that the Prime Minister will listen carefully to the advice of this important body, whose good will and co-operation are essential—as I am sure the Minister agrees—if the Armed Forces are to get the doctors they need.
The Answer to another Question which I asked on 25th January shows that the combined strength of all general duty doctors in all three Services is one-third down on peace-time establishment. Hon. Members will find that in HANSARD of 25th January. But these figures conceal more than they reveal. In the lower ranks of the medical services in the Army—that is, from major downwards—the numbers on the general duty side are more than two-thirds below peacetime establishment. This is a very serious situation indeed, as I am quite sure the Minister agrees.
Perhaps the Government hope that civilian doctors and dentists can take a greater share of the medical care of the Services than they do already. In my personal opinion this would be a false economy, if adopted on any considerable scale, though it may well be a scheme that is dear to the heart of the Treasury. I find it difficult to believe that the overstretched National Health Service can undertake much more, and I bear in mind the growing list of the number of doctors who are going abroad in a steady and rather frightening stream.
There is no comfort to be found in the medical cadet system. I have been looking into it recently. It made a promising start in 1962, but enlistment has been declining seriously and the latest pay award is in my view likely to sound the death knell of this very good scheme.
In our view the Government stand accused of a flagrant act of exploitation as well as an exhibition of meanness. Lieutenant-General Sir Alexander Drummond, recently Director-General of Medical Services, in a severe indictment of the Government's folly, described the pay award as a "confidence trick". That was in a letter to the British Medical Journal on 14th January.
I conclude by asking the Minister three questions. I ask him to break his eloquent silence about this question and to tell the House three things. First, why did he wait from early May until late December last year to decide and announce the pay award to Service doctors and dentists, thus needlessly subjecting them to the "freeze"? Secondly, why was the award not back-dated to 1st April in accordance with the clear and unequivocal promise in paragraph 4 of Cmnd. 2903? Thirdly, why has the Secretary of State secretly made a fundamental change of policy in relation to the pay of Service doctors and dentists, contrary to the 1962 understanding with the British Medical Association?
But I hope that when the Minister replies, that instead of answering these questions he will tell us he prefers to have second thoughts about this matter. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and I am quite sure that the Minister and the Secretary of State are men with broad minds and brave spirits. [HON. Members: "Oh."] Well, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt. I hope that the Minister is man enough to declare a change of heart, and I think that the House would be quick to respect him for it. Both he and all the Armed Forces in his care and in the Secretary of State's care have everything to gain from a belated act of restitution to Service doctors and dentists. I ask him to put right this blunder before it is too late. If he does not do so, he cannot complain if we condemn the Government for a clear breach of faith.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: On a point of order. Are we

likely, Mr. Speaker, to be favoured with the attendance of the Secretary of State for Defence? I should have thought that this was a matter which he might regard as important.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that that is not a point of order for me.

4.28 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Administration) (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked me to apologise to the House for his absence at this stage. He has other commitments into which he entered before the debate was announced. He will be here later in our proceedings, considerably before we reach the Division at 7 p.m., to listen to part of the debate.
We are to have a very short debate, and bearing in mind that in the two-and-three-quarter hours there will he two Front Bench Opposition speakers, in what is a censure Motion, the signatures to which are headed by the Leader of the Opposition, I had intended only to reply to the debate. I had in mind that many back-bench Members maintain that too much time is occupied by Front Bench speakers in short debates of this kind. Nevertheless, at the request of the Opposition I will give some of the facts now and I hope, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye in the concluding 10 minutes to answer further points which may arise. I am splitting my speech in two at the request of the Opposition, who wanted a Government statement early in the debate.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) said that the present system for Service doctors' pay started in 1962, but I must correct one or two statements which he made in that respect. He said that it affected about 1,000 doctors and 400 dentists. In fact, it affects 2,000 doctors and 480 dentists in all three Services. The hon. and gallant Member probably had in mind only the Army doctors, the figure for which is just under a thousand, and did not add Navy and Air Force doctors. Having been responsible as Minister of Defence for the Army for 12 months, and now having overall responsibility for all three Services, this is a mistake that I, too, might have made.
I must make a further correction. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the action in 1962 of the Government, which he supported, of splitting the Services pay award in half. It was not a particularly large award, but the then Government decided, because of the economic circumstances of that time, to "welsh" on the bargain—something which the Opposition are accusing us of doing. The accusation comes poorly from the people sitting on the Front Bench opposite at the moment. They did give the full, and very large, increase to Service doctors in 1962.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make clear what he said about the numbers. I am looking at the Answer which he gave on 25th January about the number of serving doctors. The totals which he then gave do not add up to 2,000. He says that they do now. Would he explain that?

Mr. Reynolds: I am talking about establishments. I will give the figure of doctors in post later because, again, I cannot understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures or from where he has got them. The total establishment is about 2,000 doctors, with 480 dentists.
It was obvious in 1962 that in 1963 there would be a shortfall of 33 per cent. of doctors in the Royal Navy, 50 per cent. of doctors in the Army and 30 per cent. of doctors in the Royal Air Force if something were not done about it. There were several factors involved. There were the opportunities for satisfying work for doctors within the Services. There was the general public image of the medical profession as a whole of the type of work which Service doctors do, and the question of pay. With National Service coming to an end, the Armed Forces have been able to get the services of qualified doctors on short service commissions.
Mr. Profumo, in the Army Estimates debate in 1962, brought forward what he referred to as an eight point charter for doctors. He did not announce any increase in pay on that occasion, but a widening of the type of work which they would be able to do and improved conditions of service. On the question of the opportunities which were, to an

extent, lacking at that time, this is something which has been got over in the interim period between 1962 and the present day.
There are opportunities in the Services for all types of work—hospital work, general practitioner work and consultant work. A great deal of exceptionally good work is being done by Service doctors in all three Services in looking after the medical and physical welfare of serving soldiers and officers and the very large numbers of wives and other dependents stationed with them in various parts of the world. We are lucky to have a medical service for the three Services second to none which can be found in civilian life in this country. This arises from the change in conditions in 1962 and the pay structure set up at that time.
Discussions were held with the British Medical Association before a pay structure for Service doctors was fixed in 1962. Service doctors were eventually given a lead of 16 per cent. over the average salary drawn by general practitioners in this country, so that general practitioners could be attracted to work with the Navy, Army and Air Force. The idea was to attract people from general practitioner service into the Services because of the need for doctors in the Services. The B.M.A., as part of the package deal, helped wholeheartedly, and so did the deans of medical faculties, in recruiting students and other doctors into the medical services of the Armed Forces.
The position now is this. There is a deficiency of doctors, not of one-third, but of 11 per cent. and a deficiency of dentists of 5 per cent. for the three Armed Services. If hon. Members would like the figures, I will read them at a pace a little slower than my normal pace so that hon. Members can note them. The Royal Navy has an establishment of 386 doctors and a strength of 322 doctors, a deficiency of 16½ per cent. The Army has an establishment of 973 doctors and a strength of 845 doctors, a deficiency of 13·1 per cent. The R.A.F. has an establishment of 653 doctors and a strength of 611 doctors, a deficiency of 6·7 per cent. This gives an overall deficiency of 224 doctors—about 11 per cent.
The Royal Navy has an establishment of 115 dentists and a strength of 115.


The Army has an establishment of 217 dentists and a strength of 196, a deficiency of about 10 per cent. The R.A.F. has an establishment of 150 dentists and a strength of 149, a deficiency of, I am told, 0·6 per cent. This is the present position—a vast change since 1962 when it was obvious that there would be very considerable deficiencies.
I thank the B.M.A. and the deans of the medical schools for the assistance which they have given in reaching this much more satisfactory, but by no means completely satisfactory, situation. We must remember that the real question is not just a shortage of Service doctors, but a shortage of doctors. Anything that one does to attract doctors into any aspect of service must inevitably, because of the limited number of doctors, mean attracting them away from other aspects of the medical service.
In 1962 a decision was taken, because of the situation in the Armed Services, to give financial incentives and incentives to continue in the Service, and the opportunities available had to be given a lead over those for general practitioners to attract people to the Services. On the face of it, that has worked reasonably well since.

Mr. James Ramsden: What is the comparable figure for the national deficiency? I think that it was l0 per cent. in 1962. It would clarify the right hon. Gentleman's argument if he would give the comparable figure for today.

Mr. Reynolds: It is a little less than that, I think, but I will endeavour to get the information so that I can give it later. But it must be remembered that this deficiency dates back to the decision taken in the early 1950s as a result of the Willink Committee's Report, which said that we were training 10 per cent. too many doctors. That Report was accepted by right hon. Members opposite, who were in office at that time, and the number of places in medical schools was cut in the early 1950s. That decision is what we are suffering from at present.
It does not matter what one does about pay over the medical services as a whole. It takes some years before the medical schools can be expanded and the additional doctors can come along. The agreement reached in 1962 meant that doctors were taken out of the normal

Grigg arrangements. They were given a separate analogue—that of the general practitioner—and a 16 per cent. lead. There are completely different calculations involved. As their pay is linked to that of general practitioners, it comes into a different time scale from that of other officers in the Armed Services.
Despite the fact that Service doctors are not strictly in the Grigg arrangements, the timing of their increases, I readily admit, coincided in 1962 and 1964 with the timing of increases under the normal Grigg arrangements. The arrangements, for setting up the increase in pay for Service officers and soldiers were announced in February. It was stated at that time that information about Service doctors would be published in due course and that the increase would be backdated to 1st April, 1966. It might be argued that we could have used the normal Grigg arrangements and given the percentage increase given to other officers. But the B.M.A. would not have been happy about that.
This is another point on which I must correct the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. He referred to the fact that Service doctors did not have a trade union to argue their case for them. Perhaps he does not regard the B.M.A. as a trade union. Perhaps the Association does not regard itself as a trade union, but as a professional association. There is a subtle difference when one considers what trade unions and associations do. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not on strong ground here, because these people are the only people in the Services who have a union or association which negotiates at official level with the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State.
The officials of the B.M.A. have met the Secretary of State on this matter over the last few months. These are the only members of Her Majesty's Services whose pay is negotiated by a professional association or union. Others are dependent entirely on the Government's good will for keeping their word concerning Grigg. The record in 1962 was not too good when right hon. and hon. Members were in office. These people have an association to look after their interests which enters into direct discussions with the Ministry of Defence on pay and conditions of service.
The Kindersley Committee considered the pay of doctors as a whole in the National Health Service. It was agreed that the normal Grigg increase would not apply to Service doctors but that we would wait for the Kindersley Report which was presented to Her Majesty's Government on 25th March and published in May, 1966. Finally, the Government agreed increases in pay for National Health Service doctors which resulted, not in a total increase of 40 per cent. for general practitioners, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said; but, including the 9 per cent. earlier increase to which he referred, a total increased over the period from the previous Grigg review of 44 per cent. In May, 1966, discussions started between the Ministry of Defence and the British Medical Association on Service pay. They could not have started before because it was only at about that time that the Government and the B.M.A. had agreed on what, in effect, has been the analogue on which these matters are dealt with concerning the Services.
There are two matters now to be considered: the date from which the increases become operable and the amount of the increase to be paid to Service doctors. I will deal first with the date. In Cmnd. 2903 we said that payment would be backdated to 1st April, 1966, but the negotiations, which started in May, 1966, and which could not have started sooner, were overtaken by the Government's White Paper, Cmnd. 3073, on the prices and incomes standstill, which meant a deferment of six months in the operative date for Service doctors. This applied to all outstanding claims. What must be borne in mind by everybody is the overriding necessity for, and the common sense of, the Government's policy as set out in the White Paper, and it would have been quite wrong for an exception to have been made in the case of the Services.
That White Paper having deferred the operative date for six months, we then had a further White Paper on the Government's policy during the period of restraint, Cmnd. 3150, under which the date of payment—not the date of operation—of claims of this sort was put off to 1st July, 1967. This applies not only to Service doctors but to the many

hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other people who have had their operative dates deferred for six months. I am personally sorry about the effect on individuals in this way, but the statement of Government policy as contained in the White Paper has been one which, I believe, Gallup polls and other indications of public opinion have shown to have general public support.
The Government believe that we cannot in this case provide for excepting Service doctors from a general principle which applies to everybody throughout the country. In fact, on 28th November, the B.M.A.—which, I get the impression, is becoming a militant union if not a militant professional association—reluctantly accepted, although having argued against it, that in view of the Government's White Papers on this matter the operative date and the date of actual payment would have to be accepted. I do not say that the B.M.A. liked this, but in view of the two White Papers and our discussions with the B.M.A., it reluctantly accepted that the increase must date from October and not from July, 1966. In other words, Service doctors are on the same basis as their National Health Service colleagues.
The second question is the amount of the award. Service doctors had a 16 per cent. lead over general practitioners to attract qualified doctors into the Forces. The 44 per cent. increase for general practitioners in the National Health Service was designed to a large extent to attract doctors into the general practitioner service. One therefore gets into the rather ridiculous position of giving a 16 per cent. lead to Service doctors over general practitioners to attract people to the Services, and then giving general practitioners a large increase mainly to attract people into general practice. Thus, obviously, if we continue to pay all other people in a relationship with general practitioners, we would to a large extent nullify the idea of giving general practitioners a particularly large increase to attract people into that branch of National Health Service medicine.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Surely the Minister's responsibility is to those in the Services. It is no good his talking about that kind of thing.

Mr. Reynolds: As the hon. Member is well aware, my responsibility is to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The Government have decided on a wage freeze and period of restraint because they maintain, and in this they are generally supported by the public, that it is good for the general economy and will, no doubt, in future years put us in a position in which we will be able to deal with some of the things which it has been impossible to deal with adequately before because of the state of the economy for many years past.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Is the hon. Gentleman asking the House to believe that the rise of 44 per cent. in doctors' pay was to entice doctors from the Services into general practice rather than, as we understood, to entice people to become doctors rather than, for example, coal miners?

Mr. Reynolds: One reason for the increase was to entice people into general practice. It was felt that there had been an increase in the amount of work in general practice and there was a reduction in the number of people entering it. It was not regarded, I assume, as a financially worth-while career in medicine. One of the reasons why general practitioners got a larger increase than hospital doctors was to try to stop the drift from general practice.
We must, however, look also at what is now included in the elements of calculation of remuneration for general practitioners in the National Health Service. A number of items are now included which were not included when the general practitioner service was taken as the analogue on which Service doctors' pay would be based. Under the new arrangements, for example, G.P.s get an additional amount of money for every patient over the age of 65. That does not, thank goodness, apply to Service people, except, perhaps, in one or two exceptional cases where dependants over that age might be treated by a Service doctor. In general, it does not apply to the Armed Forces.
Doctors now get an allowance in the general practitioner service for working outside normal hours of responsibility. The Service doctor, like every Service man, accepts that he is liable to work 24 hours a day. It could be argued that this is a new element in the pay of a G.P.

which is not strictly relevant to Service doctoring. There is also a special allowance in the pay of some G.P.s for service in specially designated areas. One must question whether an allowance of this nature which is paid to some G.P.s should be included in an analogue which applies to Service doctors.
There is also a group practice allowance on a different arrangement from what has been done in the past. Again, one must ask whether items of this nature in the calculation of G.P.s' pay should or should not be regarded when using their pay as an analogue for Service doctors. In addition, there are seniority payments for G.P.s and, of course, the Service structure provides for seniority by gradual movement up the ranks.
One of the other reasons for increasing the salary of general practitioners was that it was agreed that there had been an increased load of work which did not necessarily apply to Service doctors.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister please recognise that the complaint of the Service doctors and dentists, and their families—I hope that he will not forget the families—is not the comparison between the pay of National Health Service doctors and themselves, but the comparison with the pay of non-medical officers in the Forces?

Mr. Reynolds: Therefore, for incomes policy reasons, the Government reluctantly decided that the increase for Service doctors could be only 10 per cent., in other words, breaking away from the analogue on which Service doctors have previously been based.

Sir T. Beamish: Is this breaking away something with which the B.M.A. also reluctantly agreed?

Mr. Reynolds: I was not making any such claim. As the hon. Member stated that the B.M.A. so far disagrees with it that it has asked for an interview with the Prime Minister, I would have thought that he knew the answer.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is very important. The hon. Gentleman said earlier, if I did not mishear him, that the B.M.A. had accepted, albeit reluctantly, this payment and its payment as from 1st July this year.

Mr. Reynolds: No. I said that the B.M.A. accepted reluctantly the timing. As the right hon. Gentleman will see when he reads HANSARD tomorrow, I said that I wanted to deal with two matters, one of which was timing and the other the amount. I was dealing then with timing and said that the B.M.A., albeit reluctantly, after discussion and studying the White Papers, had come to the conclusion that this was definite Government policy and, therefore, reluctantly accepted the operative date and the date on which the money would be paid to Service doctors.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes in moving the Motion of censure, said that the B.M.A. is so dissatisfied with the matter that it is trying to see the Prime Minister to discuss the matter with him; and there is no dispute about that. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) asks what they are trying to discuss.
The B.M.A. has reluctantly accepted the dates concerned. I am not trying to say that the B.M.A. has accepted the percentage increase or the amount of money concerned. That is something about which it is trying to see the Prime Minister to discuss the 10 per cent. increase.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not quite fair to the B.M.A. to suggest that it reluctantly accepts one part of the problem and then to dismiss the remainder of it as of little consequence? That is the impression which he has given. The B.M.A. early this month described the whole of this unhappy position as "a very great disappointment", "the present unhappy situation" and "an invidious position" and went on to express "grave disquiet". That is hardly a picture of reluctant acceptance of anything.

Mr. Reynolds: There is no doubt whatever that the B.M.A. reluctantly accepted the two dates concerned, October, 1966, being the operative date and July, 1967, being the date on which the actual payment would be made. I tried to explain that I was dealing with this in two parts, the timing and amount. My remarks applied simply to the timing: I did not mention the amount.
Everyone is aware of the views of the B.M.A. on the amount and I assume that that is what the debate is about. The Motion of censure, concerns the date as well as the amount. The B.M.A. reluctantly accepted the date. No one is trying to make out that it is happy. I know that it is very unhappy and objects strongly to the percentage increase, but I was then referring to the two dates under the incomes policy. As stated in this House and approved by the House and by the country on many occasions, the increase of 10 per cent. was fixed. By chance and not design, this is roughly the same as for senior hospital doctors and clinical lecturers and slightly less than for junior hospital doctors under the Kindersley and other pay awards.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we should bear in mind the relationship between general practitioners' pay and that of their Service colleagues. Once the 10 per cent. comes into operation, a medical captain will, on average, be drawing 49 per cent. more pay than an ordinary captain. A medical major at the age of about 34 will be drawing 23 per cent. more pay than an ordinary major, a lieutenant-colonel will be drawing on average 14 per cent. more than an ordinary lieutenant-colonel, a colonel about 6 per cent. more than a non-medical colonel and a brigadier would have the same pay as a non-medical brigadier.
Those are the percentages which the hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I put to the Minister a comparison which I have been given by the wife of a wing commander who is a medical officer? She writes:
My husband expects to get £250 (approx.) and I am sure I am right when I say that a non-medical wing commander of 4 years standing receives £402.

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring, of course, to the amount of the increase. I do not have those figures, but he is referring to the pay of a non-medical group captain or wing commander, the amount of pay under the Grigg Review of April, 1956, and the amount of pay which a non-medical wing commander is likely to be getting now. The percentages are different so the amounts are likely to be


smaller, but the fact remains that a major who is a doctor will be getting 23 per cent. more than one who is not.
The pay is higher. It is 49 per cent. higher for a medical captain than for an ordinary one, 23 per cent. for a major, 14 per cent. for a lieutenant-colonel, 6 per cent. for a colonel, and at brigadier level the payments are the same. The figures which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave are the amounts of the increase—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: A very specious argument.

Mr. Reynolds: It may be a specious argument, but it is correct. It is one of the things which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked for. It means that they get more pay all the way up. One must bear in mind the improvements and the relationship with general practitioners. A captain, in many cases, will get roughly the same money as a general practitioner of a similar age—about £2,400 per year in total emoluments. A major aged 34 will in future get, in total emoluments, £2,909 a year, which is about 12·6 per cent. less than a general practitioner of roughly the same age.
A colonel in the Royal Army Medical Corps will get £4,190 a year, about 2 per cent. more than a general practitioner of the same age. I use the word "about" deliberately, because until the Kindersley recommendations and the rates accepted by the Government for general practitioners have been in operation for a while, we will not know how much a general practitioner will get, so one cannot be too dogmatic about comparisons at the moment.
I have to repeat that I cannot agree that there is a case for exemption from the incomes policy for Service doctors and dentists, when the incomes policy is being rigidly adhered to by the Government for everybody else. Our action in this respect is supported by public opinion. The whole Grigg scheme, as announced by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary in 1966, is being looked at by Her Majesty's Government at the moment. It was criticised obliquely in paragraph 54 of the White Paper, which said that it was not perhaps the best way of relating the pay of the Services to other aspects of civilian life.
That whole problem is being considered. Such a review must, of course, include all Service men, whether medical, flying, Navy, Army or Air Force, and doctors and dentists will have to be considered in the review. We will have to consider what analogue, if any, there should be for doctors and dentists—whether it should be general practitioners, hospital doctors or any other class of people outside military life. We should consider whether we should pay doctors and dentists exactly the same amount in the Services, because they are not paid exactly the same amount in civilian life in the National Health Service. We shall have to consider the method of payment and perhaps whether we could not give Service doctors and dentists the same basic pay of people of the same rank in the Army or whether we should use some other method.
I make no commitments, but these are some of the things which may have to be looked at for the future in the review. I do not know what the outcome of the review will be, but we shall have to discuss it with the British Medical Association. It will be exceedingly difficult for the Government to carry on negotiations and discussions with the B.M.A. on a ticklish subject of this kind if the B.M.A. carries out the threat or promise which I understand was decided at its last meeting in December, that it would blacklist all Service appointments if it does not receive a satisfactory reply in its discussions with the Prime Minister.
This is the kind of industrial action which has been condemned by many professional bodies for many years past. I hope that that is not the sort of action which the B.M.A. will take. If so, it will be almost impossible to carry on with the necessary negotiations to try to ensure the position for the future. I will try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later in the debate to deal with any other points raised. I apologise for taking so long, but I was interrupted several times.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: The Minister always manages to say a great deal in a short time. What will have disconcerted the House is not so much the matter of his speech but its mood and tone. He made the kind of speech which might be considered appropriate to a


Treasury Minister rather than a Service Minister. Those of us who have had the honour of representing Service Ministries, as he does, know that it is possible to have to speak from an awkward brief. Nevertheless, one likes to get the impression from the way in which a Service Minister attacks his subject that he is doing his best and has done his best to stand up for the rights of the people in that Service.
I did not get the impression today that this was what was uppermost in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I hope that the reallocation of duties in the Department of Defence will not mean that the conscious duty of standing up for one's Service will be the less present in the minds of those who represent them.
I should like to go back to the original paragraph 4 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 2903, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), in his lucid exposition of our case, began his speech by quoting. I make no apology for quoting it again:
Since 1962 the pay of Service medical and dental officers … has taken account of increased awards for civilian doctors and dentists engaged in the National Health Service. Rates of remuneration in the National Health Service are under consideration and, in consequence"—
this is the passage which I would ask the House to note—
it has not been possible to include in the attached Appendices revised rates of pay for Service medical and dental officers. Revised rates of pay, which will be effective from 1st April, 1966, will be published separately.
In dealing with the points made in this connection by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Minister skated a little. The final words of that paragraph constitute a clear statement of Government intention. It must have been read and noted not only by hundreds of doctors and dentists serving on existing engagements, but by many intending recruits. Since that White Paper was published, recruits will have entered the Services on what has turned out to be a false prospectus.
In the paragraph I quoted, the Government gave two undertakings; first the explicit undertaking that the increases, when decided, would be effective from 1st April, 1966—that was stated in black and white—and secondly the implicit undertaking that the relationship between the Service rates and National Health Ser

vice rates, which had been established in 1962, would be maintained for the future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that anybody reading that paragraph would have been bound to have put on it that interpretation—that the relationship between the Services rates and National Health Service would be maintained for the future?

Mr. Reynolds: Those were, in fact, the statements which the right hon. Gentleman made on Grigg in 1962.

Mr. Ramsden: Then the hon. Gentleman is confirming what I say? It is obvious that a young man in a medical school would have deduced that in future, if he joined the Services, his rate of pay would be based on a lead over the National Health Service rates. Indeed, the White Paper said, in effect "We are at present negotiating this and while we do not know precisely what your final rates will be, they will be such that they will carry a lead over what you would have got had you gone into civilian practice". Those undertakings about the future for recruits were implied, to say the least, in that White Paper.
I cannot recall a clearer commitment ever having been given in this context to members of the Armed Forces. What has happened means that the Government are in breach of that commitment and have fallen down on their promise. That is why we are having this debate. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself, and I regret that he has not been in the Chamber throughout this discussion to listen to the arguments. He has made an alteration retrospectively in the terms and conditions of service on which men have been accepted into branches of the Services—something that has always been considered completely out of court and a heinous crime on the part of any Government in connection with Service administration.
The Minister has not only not kept his word but has put leading members of the British Medical Association, who were concerned in the 1962 settlement, in a false position, because as a result of what was decided in 1962 they pledged their credit to young doctors on the basis of agreement on the terms on which those doctors would serve in future. By what has happened the Minister has cut the ground from beneath their feet.


No wonder the B.M.A. is hopping mad in this situation.
I well remember the background to the steps that were taken in 1962 to improve the recruiting of doctors and dentists. That became necessary, as the Minister reminded us, because when National Service came to an end, and with a national shortage, the need for doctors and dentists in all three Services was very great indeed. The figure varied from between 13 per cent. in the R.A.F. to about 30 per cent. in the Army. The Minister was right to remind the House of the danger implicit in such deficiencies of establishment, bearing in mind that Service doctors and dentists must exercise the care of Service families as well as Service men.
Faced with that situation, with the assistance of the late Sir Frederick Hooper, the then Service Ministers went to the B M.A. and asked for its co-operation. Unless the B.M.A. had thrown its weight into the scales and had helped us we would not have got the additional recruits. Everything depended on whether the heads of the teaching hospitals and the deans of the medical schools were prepared to say to potential recruits, "We can recommend you to go in for a Service career". Positive advice of that type was given.
It was not altogether easy at that time to persuade the leading members of the B.M.A. that it would be right for them to so advise prospective young doctors and dentists. We had to appeal to the sense of patriotism of the great profession of British medicine to come to the assistance of the Armed Forces of the Crown, and we were delighted when that response was forthcoming. Having convinced the B.M.A. that an effort on its part would be laudable and praiseworthy, we then had to give solid grounds for it to advise young men to join the Services. We had to assure its members that they could advise young men that to join would be in their best interests.
The foundation on which to build such advice to the young men for whom they were responsible was set out in The Times on 27th April, 1962. First, it was said,
The new pay scales are designed to bring the pay of service medical officers into a much better relationship with those in civilian life.
What price that assurance now? As far as I can see, it is to go. Secondly,

The new pay code gives the young doctor in the Services a considerable lead over his counterpart in the National Health Service.
Will that still be true in the future? It was believed then, but that belief has certainly diminished as a result of what has happened.
This brings me to the subject of longer careers. It was arranged that the present retiring ages of 55 and 60 for Service doctors and dentists would be raised and that all three Services would offer civilian re-employment up to the age of 65 to retired medical officers. What effect will the changes have, if any, on the pensions payable to those who are doing the extra three years and who will retire with their final three years' service on the rates of pay as determined by this settlement?
It was on this basis that we persuaded the B.M.A. to channel recruits into the Services and to give responsible advice which would be in the interests of the young doctors for whom the heads of the profession felt themselves responsible. As a result of what has happened, the Minister has put those who felt themselves responsible in the position of having sold an entirely false prospectus at that time to those young men. This is not fair on the B.M.A. and is most unwise from the point of view of future co-operation between the B.M.A. and the health profession of the Services. The Minister knows full well that if he does not get that co-operation and re-establish the confidence which this incident has destroyed, his prospects of getting the numbers of doctors and dentists he needs will be very poor indeed.
For one reason or another, the Secretary of State has let the medical profession down and let Service doctors down. He has destroyed the relationship of confidence and trust which had been built between the Services and the B.M.A., which was certainly producing results in the way of recruits. He has broken faith with existing Service doctors and dentists and he has inevitably prejudiced his chances of a satisfactory inflow in future. He deserves the censure of the House.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I share with the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) the strong desire that the Government should


maintain the maximum amount of co-operation with the B.M.A., not only on the lines put forward, but also because I know from past experience how formidable that body can be. It has often been called the strongest trade union, but by law it has had to hive off a separate organisation, the British Medical Guild, which acts as a trade union when necessary. Its use has been threatened, but it has never yet been called into use. I echo the right hon. Gentleman's comment about the need for closer co-operation with the B.M.A., but I would also emphasise the importance of the British Dental Association which is very much involved in this argument, and which does not get as much attention as the B.M.A.
I feel an intruder because, although I am interested in health matters, this is the first Services debate in which I have taken part. I enter the debate because of the subject matter—doctors' and dentists' pay—and I hope that the House will forgive me for making comments on these lines.
The difficulty which hon. Members are in has emerged from the start. It is the difficulty of making comparisons between doctors and dentists working in one sphere of activity and those working in another. This has emerged in trying to make an adjustment in the relationship between the officer in the Services who is a doctor and the officer who is not a doctor. This happens in every sphere in which doctors are employed. We have exactly the same problem with local authorities, where the medical officer of health has difficulty in fixing his pay in relation to the borough treasurer or the town clerk. This problem is inherent in the fact that doctoring and dentistry are specialties with their own peculiar needs and disciplines. When we try to equate them with those in another sphere this nearly always leads to a number of anomalies.
The case made this afternoon for the special treatment of doctors in the Services could be made with equal force perhaps for doctors who are lecturers in clinical medicine, because they are in precisely the same position. We have to accept the overall economic background in which we are working. Although doctors and dentists are

naturally anxious to get their dues, in a period of economic difficulty and severe restraint they would not wish or seek to be treated differently from other members of the community. There has been a period of "stop" in which considerable numbers of people in different sectors of the community have felt that they were unjustly treated because of the incidence on their particular job and special factors which they wanted taken into consideration. The various trade unions from time to time have sought to make changes in matters affecting their members.

Mr. Goodhew: Has the hon. Member not applied his mind to the fact that in this case we are dealing with people who should have had an increase in salary in April but it had to be postponed and they could have had it long before the present pause started?

Mr. Pavitt: The point was made very well by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) and I have applied myself to it. This applies also to members of the Fire Brigades Union who were subject to a standstill, and a large number of members of the hospital service who feel aggrieved and unjustly treated solely because of the way in which the dates of various decisions fell. They felt that they were subject to injustice and they made representations on those points.
The point of view put by the Government is that if we have a standstill and an agreement has been made, even though an anomaly sticks out a mile once one deals with that anomaly one finds ten or more other anomalies created. Doctors have to accept the same treatment as other workers. I accept the point made about the 1962 arrangements and the differentials, but I believe that neither in this field nor in any other are differentials sacrosanct. In a changing economic system it would be entirely wrong, especially in a fairly tight profession, such as that of medicine or dentistry, to set down certain differentials and seek to hold them for all time, irrespective of the way in which population changes general conditions or the numbers of hours worked change.
I know more about general practice than about the workload of Services doctors. I find it difficult to balance the


responsibilities of a Services doctor with those of a general practitioner who has a capitation allowance from which he has to find his own surgery, transport, electricity and all the things which go to make pay in general practice one of the most confusing pay structures with which anyone has to deal. Therefore, I can understand the difficulty of trying to work out the way in which differentials between general practice and the work of doctors in the Armed Forces should be equated.
The Government have acted rightly in taking the Kindersley Report as the basis for discussion. It was inevitable that, with a separate and independent body established for the whole of the medical and dental professions, although ultimate responsibility must rest with him, the Minister of Defence must take into account all other evidence available to him. Having looked at the evidence before him, he is not bound to maintain precisely the same differentials as existed before. In the case of junior hospital doctors and general practitioners, in the light of the standstill the Minister of Health was able to see his way clear to give certain amelioration. For example, when doctors expected their money to arrive on a due date and entered commitments because of that, the Ministry was able to give advances to meet certain commitments. Those advances, I believe, were given on the nod to consultants, but the poor junior doctors had to show good cause.
In the kind of circumstances in which Service doctors and dentists were looking forward to such advances and made plans and family commitments on the basis of those advances, I should like to know whether easing arrangements have been given to Service doctors in the same way as easing arrangements have been given to others.
It is difficult to isolate this problem. My hon. Friend referred to the total number of doctors in the Services and the total number required. I do not think that in the last seven years there has bee a debate on health in the House when the unfortunate Willink Committee has not been mentioned, together with the 10 per cent. cut-back of medical students and the fact that it takes seven years to produce a doctor. It is not a question only of the overall

size of the medical cake and how many doctors there are to do the job. There is a problem. The input of doctors going into the medical schools is up by over 20 per cent. this year.
Apart from the total number of doctors and dentists available, there is a responsibility on the Government to get the right kind of balance in the way in which these men are being deployed. If there is a need to get more people into hospitals and fewer in local health authorities, the arrangements which are made for medical practitioners should be on those lines. If it is of greater service to transfer dentists from the general practice of dentistry to the school dental service so that they can prevent more caries from arising and ensure that oral hygiene is introduced at an early date, it would be right to act upon those lines.
The figures produced show that the fall-back from the Services establishment in dentistry is very small. There may well be more than an adequate number of dentists in the Services. With the pressures there are at the moment, dentists at present serving in the Armed Forces might perhaps be better employed in looking after the dental health of children in the community. This is a question which cuts right across the debate but is not divorced from the question of how they are paid, what they are paid, on what basis, and so on.
It is only a 10 per cent. increase for Service doctors and dentists and is less than that given in the arrangements made for similar professions outside, but even that figure is much in excess of the norm permitted under the prices and incomes policy. There is a considerable amount of feeling amongst dockers that, whereas they are pegged to an increase in productivity, it would appear that doctors receive more favoured treatment. I am not arguing that case this afternoon, because I recognise that owing to the serious shortages which have occurred, mainly as a result of the Willink Report, we must do what we can with the amount of manpower available, but I would not regard the incomes policy as being less sacrosanct for medical and dental men in the Services than it is for other sectors of the community. However, I do not think that that is happening at the moment.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend indicated that discussions will continue with the B.M.A. and the B.D.A. The Prime Minister is now being brought in as the last court of appeal over the previous arrangements. From the case which has been made out I accept the frustration which the doctors and dentists will have had. I accept the difficulties which they will have had. However, in my view they are no more and no less than those which a large number of my constituents who are not doctors or dentists have had to suffer during the last six months and will have to go through in the period of severe restraint. It is to the honour of the medical and dental professions that, in the main, they accept these difficulties as well as the rest of the community.

5.23 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: It appears from what we have heard so far that the facts on which the Motion has been based are not in dispute, in spite of some very fast talking by the Minister of Defence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he now?"] Where is he now, indeed? As his attitude was so thoroughly unsympathetic, I am not surprised that he has disappeared with his right hon. Friend.
I suppose I represent more Service doctors than any other Member and certainly far more naval doctors. There is nothing phoney or spurious about the indignation expressed in the Motion. I assure the House that it is as nothing compared with the way that these doctors are expressing themselves currently. I have been on the receiving end of some of it. This is not just a simple snub. This is the most comprehensive doublecross that even this Government have yet perpetrated.
This is such a concatenation of repudiation of their pledged word and of written contracts, which had not been given under duress, that we must follow this through in detail and look at some of the results. There has been a lot of flannel so far, but the effects have not been described in any detail.
We all realise that the Socialist Government are in their usual economic mess. As in 1931, as in 1951, so in the years leading up to 1971, I suppose. They are setting the country into a decline of which

no end can be foreseen. When in a mess, Socialists always go for the defence forces first. We can already see on the subject of the ironmongery how the Secretary of State for Defence has tried to back-track on every commitment so far entered into and has largely disarmed both the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy at least. Now it is the turn of the men. The doctors are being kicked in the teeth. Their service is being diminished, and it appears that the health of the men does not matter very much to their Ministers.
Let us look through this sickening farrago of deception. The issues were very nicely obscured by the rapid double talk of the Minister of Defence. One thing we would like to settle is this: are Service doctors to he treated on the same basis as their civilian counterparts, or are Service doctors to be regarded alongside their Service colleagues who are not doctors? After all, they must be placed alongside one or the other. On the one hand, when the pay of civilian doctors was increased that of Service medical officers was not increased. On the other hand, when there was an 18 per cent. pay rise for other Service men last April it was not given to Service doctors.
A promise was made. Everyone who has spoken so far has drawn attention to it. Cmnd. 2903 stated that the revised rates of pay which would be effective from 1st April, 1966, would be published separately—Cmnd. 2903 of February, 1966. That was well before the panic measures of July. Then, as the House dispersed for Christmas, the right hon. Gentleman produced an award which I can only describe as derisory. It was a slap in the face for Service medical men. It was given in a Written Answer well after any possibility of a debate before Christmas was ruled out. It is a nice piece of evasion. Let us not pretend that that point has been missed. We all realise it here. So do Service medical men. It was obviously intentional. People do not do such things inadvertently.
I can only assume that the answer to my two questions is, "Neither". Service medical officers are not to be treated as comparable either with civilian doctors or with other Service men. They have been given an individual and frightful sock on the jaw. This sock on the jaw has been delivered to people who, in


spite of what the Minister of Defence said, are defenceless. They are under contract for up to 16 years. They are, as I know so well, under Naval discipline. They cannot agitate or strike. They cannot even combine. As the Minister of Defence (Administration) has probably been associated only with the Army, I will forgive him if he does not know that a document with even two signatures on it is mutiny. I can remember when a few Wrens at Lee-on-Solent signed a notice saying that they did not want the car routine to start at 7 in the morning but at 8 in the morning. They were all court-martialled for mutiny.
These doctors are under such rigid and rigorous discipline that they cannot agitate or combine or express their grievances in any combined manner. So the Minister of Defence has got them cold. This comes just at a time when Service medicine was reaching standards higher than have ever been known in the history of the Services. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman realises that such is the standard, in the Navy at least, that about 50 medical officers out of 300—about one in six—have achieved higher qualifications—diplomas or degrees—within the last four years. Does he realise that while this has been happening, the same men who have been doing these things have been entering into mortgages and insurance contracts on the strength of the assurances from his right hon. Friend, which have left their personal fortunes absolutely blasted, and that they are now involved in debts which they cannot repay, through no fault of their own?
Surely this is the behaviour of—perhaps I would be out of order in referring to names, but it seems that those who rely on the word of the Secretary of State are in a position which can be compared only with those who insured with Fire, Auto and Marine. Why has the right hon. Gentleman done this? It is because the Socialists are in a mess, as usual. Another reason is that these doctors cannot fight back, so that the Government are likely to get away with it. Another reason is that the right hon. Gentleman does not care if these doctors do quit. The manpower in the Services is going to be slashed anyway, as in the case of ships and aeroplanes. This is what the doctors are saying to me down at Portsmouth Harbour. Even if they do quit—

four at one Royal Naval Hospital have already told me that they have sent in their resignations and that the rest are discussing doing so—there is a Government monopoly in medicine anyway, and if they left, they would fall into the lap of the Minister of Health.
These people are determined that they will not put up with anything more like this. They are so angry that if they do quit they will not go back into Government service at all. They are not going to look for another dose of Socialist bad faith. They will go. Out of this country. This will be another part of the brain drain with which the present Government's name will ever be linked. Those who are too young or too old to quit tell me that they see, in the words of one of them to me personally,
no confidence in a Government which so blatantly fails to honour its agreements. Even pensions and terminal grants appear secure no longer.
The honour of hon. Members of this House is precious to them. The honour of Service men is all-important to them. But the honour of the present Government is null and void. No future pronouncement of theirs can be trusted. Nobody can trust them—least of all their own employees. The Secretary of State has destroyed all respect, all confidence. He has damaged the Service irreparably. He has created a problem for which his successors will have to pay a terrible price. I can only say of him, in the words of Tennyson,
His honour rooted in dishonour stood, And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.
True to the Labour Party, no doubt, and false to the nation and the men under his charge.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig: I do not intend to detain the House for long because I admit that I am somewhat of a layman in these affairs. When I entered the Chamber at the beginning of the debate I did not intend to intervene.
I imagine that this will be the first of a series of debates that we shall have in the next few months relating to the Government's economic policy specifically concerned with lower-paid workers. Indeed, I would share with the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) a desire for justice to be done to lower-paid workers, and that they


should suffer not too much as a result of the general economic situation. I might add that I should have thought that the choice of Service medical men as the first example was not a happy choice.
The Opposition case seems to me to be extraordinary. On the one hand, we have a solemn argument put forward that apparently if the Government do not grant a much larger rise to these men, then in future nobody will go into Army medicine. Instead, people will become coal miners. This seems to be a somewhat unlikely development—not one that would do them any harm, but one that is unlikely to come about. On the other hand, it has been suggested that it is specious to make comparisons between the incomes of medical men and of other people. We are apparently to consider them alone, on a pedestal.
It seems to me that there are only four questions which can be put to my right hon. Friend this afternoon. He has already answered some of them, but I should like to specify what these questions ought to be and what questions ought to be in the minds of hon. Members in making up their minds which way to vote tonight. First, what are the rates of pay of these men? We learn that, taking into account the rise that they are about to have, these rates vary between £2,500 and £4,000 a year.
Secondly, what is the relationship of their pay to the pay of other Army officers? We learn that, by and large, they are considerably higher and that in no case are they lower.
Thirdly, what is the relationship of their pay to the pay of doctors in general practice? We learn that this relationship varies from one level to another, that it may, overall, be a fraction lower but that there is not very much in it.
Finally, what is the relationship of the pay of these men to the general income level throughout the country? The answer is that clearly it is very much higher.
It seems to me that a legitimate case can be brought against the economic policy of the present Government. It can be argued that it is wrong to make people wait for pay increases. It can be argued that we should go back

to the policies of the last 13 years, with everybody regularly getting a large increase, with prices going up in consequence and, every few years or so, preferably when another party is about to take over the Government, a huge economic mess being left behind. I notice that that argument has not been adduced this afternoon.
It has been said "This is all very well. Never mind about the Fire Brigades Union and others who have suffered. Here is one class of people for whom we must fight." Why could not the Opposition have selected a group of people who really were in need? I do not think the Opposition's case will wash at all.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Whilst I would agree that the four points that the hon. Gentleman has listed as being relevant to the debate are relevant, may I ask him whether he would not agree that of equal, if not greater, relevance are the undertakings given by the Government to their own employees to whom those employees are under contract?

Mr. Henig: I certainly agree that this is an important consideration. The only difficulty is that there are more important considerations. The overall economic interest of the country is a more important consideration. Another important consideration is that many millions of people whose wages are insignificant compared to the wages of the people we are discussing have also to accept the freeze.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Is the hon. Gentleman putting forward the proposition that the Government's word may be disregarded whenever the Government find it convenient to do so?

Mr. Henig: No, that is not my contention. My contention is that at a time of national emergency there are national considerations which must override these kinds of individual considerations. I do not think that hon. Members opposite would disagree with that contention. They might claim that this was not a national crisis, but they cannot seriously disagree with the contention that if there is a national crisis the sort of considerations that I have been describing override these more specific ones.

Mr. Pavitt: Does my hon. Friend recall that on two previous occasions the last Government did the same thing? In 1957


they broke, for the first time in our history, the Whitley award for lower-paid Health Service employees, and in 1961 they set aside the nurses' pay award.

Mr. Henig: I would thank my hon. Friend. I recall those incidents and they fit into the pattern that I have been describing.
Over the last few months we have had a situation in which the Government, in an effort to get the economy on a better keel, have said that there would be no increases in salaries. That was for a period of six months. Now we are in a period of severe restraint in which those, perhaps, with top priority may have some increase. The people about whom complaint is made in this debate are to receive a 10 per cent. increase in their pay, a 10 per cent. increase in a pay which is by no means small, and it is to be slightly back-dated, though, apparently, not enough.
If the Opposition pursue their case into the Lobby against the Government tonight, they will be saying that they do not care about social justice and they do not care about our general economic policy. The one thing they are interested in is a specific group of people, who, perhaps, look more important to their side than to this—I do not know—a group of people who are already extremely highly paid, who are paid more than many people in comparable positions. The Opposition's case is that these people should get a much bigger increase than they are already to have.
If my right hon. Friends were thinking of giving way to this kind of argument, I should have to warn them from these back benches that, if they did any such thing, they would find that the confidence which the bulk of the country has in their policy at present would soon evaporate. I urge my right hon. Friend to stand firm.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Will the hon. Gentleman answer one question before he concludes? I am not trying to be destructive and I have a great deal of sympathy for his argument. Will he agree, nevertheless, that there is a difference between this case and the case of the industrial worker, for example, who claims a pay increase in that men in the Armed Services cannot strike and

cannot protest? They are, virtually, the dumb victims of the Government's policy.

Mr. Henig: It is up to the Government, therefore, to make sure that justice is done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The case I make from this side is that, if the Government were to say to a man earning £750 a year, "You may not have a rise at all", but said on the other hand, to the man earning £2,000 a year, "You may have only a 10 per cent. increase", this would not be social justice at all. The Government have to represent all interests and all groups in the country and not be concerned with just one group, least of all a group who seem to have done quite well for themselves even if they are always the innocent victims of Government policy.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) in his wide-ranging tour of Government economic policy, which seems to make him very excited, as it does many of us on this side.
I was surprised to learn that the Minister of Defence complains that he has to speak twice and seeks to put the blame on the Opposition. The answer is that the blame lies on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who should be here to wind up the debate and who could, presumably, be here if he cared. I was astonished, also, that the Minister of Defence should seek to twist an intervention I made on the subject of the National Health Service versus the Services themselves. It is his responsibility to see that the Services have the medical officers they need. To argue as he did about how dangerous it was for the Health Service if we gave too big a differential to Service medical officers is to present a case which could, perhaps, come from the Minister of Health but certainly not from him as the Minister here to answer on behalf of the Services.
There was a firm commitment in the White Paper that the payment would be made on 1st April. There is no doubt about that. In the view of everyone at the time, whatever Ministers may say now, this was an unequivocal commitment by the Secretary of State for Defence to pay from 1st April the increases which were decided.
I am tempted to ask what the Minister of Defence was doing between February


and 20th July to see that he got the matter sorted out. He knew that this whole question was outstanding and that something had to be done about it, preferably as soon as possible, if he was to satisfy his serving officers. He knew that he was committed to the increase back-dated to 1st April. Why did not he do anything to hasten a decision before 20th July when the freeze was finally announced?
The Secretary of State is a member of the Cabinet. He must have known what the Cabinet's thinking was, how they were proposing to introduce a standstill and a freeze. He knew of the National Health Service increase from the Kindersley Report which would have enabled him to secure a decision before 20th July. Yet the right hon. Gentleman, representing the Services in the Cabinet, knowing that all this was going on, knowing that a standstill was planned and knowing that this vital matter was outstanding did nothing to have it settled.
It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State should have behaved in this way, that he should not have realised, as he seems not to have done, how important it was to make certain that the terms of pay and conditions of service of his officers were such as they would accept and would encourage recruitment. It is difficult to see how the Services can have much confidence in a Minister who behaves in this way, who can let them down especially at a time when the country as a whole is so anxious that the Services should be encouraged. There is a great deal of concern at present about recruitment, not least because of the action of the Secretary of State for Defence himself. He is quick enough to act on cancellations of Service equipment—the TSR2, the HS681, the P1154—those decisions came tumbling out of the Ministry at a great rate, although they were matters which would control our defence posture for the next 15 or 20 years. They can be decided in a matter of moments. [Laughter.] The Minister laughs. Is he laughing at the effect on our defence capability in the coming years?

Mr. Reynolds: I was thinking of the time when those decisions were being made. We were criticised by the Opposition for taking so long to make them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now thinks that they were taken promptly.

Mr. Goodhew: They were taken promptly compared with decisions on matters like this. The cancellation of the TSR2 was a very quick decision. It is surprising that the Minister can deal in a short space of time with matters like that, matters affecting our defence posture for the next 15 or 20 years, but can behave so incredibly slowly and in such bumbling fashion on a matter of this sort when it is a question of seeing that his men are properly paid.
It is inconceivable that any Minister could allow such an important decision to hang about for so long, right up to 21st December. More than that, it was cowardly, on a matter of this importance, for his decision to appear in a Written Answer to a Question on the very day the House rose for the Christmas Recess, when there was no possibility of anyone challenging him. If he has confidence in his policies, if he believes that he is right, has he not the courage to come to the House and face it with his decision, or does he hope, by allowing the matter to appear on the Order Paper in that way, to escape challenge by the matter being forgotten when we return after Christmas?
When he did announce the increase, we found that it would not be payable until 1st July this year, 15 months after the promised date. Furthermore, it is to he back-dated only to 1st October so that those affected will lose six months of the increase which they had every right to expect under their contract.
When the increase was announced, it was a mean and miserly 10 per cent., whilst National Health Service doctors had a much higher increase, and therefore one is surprised that there should have been such a delay to produce such a monstrous decision. The Minister seems also to have accepted a reduction in the commonly accepted differential between Service and civilian doctors, and, as I pointed out in my intervention, he seems almost to have done so on the basis that perhaps he is doing the National Health Service a good turn.
Nevertheless, it is his responsibility to see that his men are medically looked after whilst in the Services, that the medical officers do not lag behind their non-medical colleagues. There is little wonder in my mind that there is such bitterness and resentment among those men at the Minister's failure to look after them. It


could hardly be better calculated to destroy confidence in him amongst his officers, and to make recruitment more difficult.
In addition to these officers being vital to the welfare of the men in the Services, there is the aspect that they must face the additional rigours of Service life. The Minister has no doubt visited units in places like Aden, the Persian Gulf, Singapore and Borneo. It is monstrous that people who accept the additional commitment of constantly being posted about the world, going into areas where warfare is taking place, should now be expected to accept a gradually reducing differential just because the Minister at any rate seems to be happy to see a greater swing towards the Health Service.
I consider that they deserve much better treatment than they have received from the Minister, and for that reason I, with my right hon. and hon. Friends, condemn this open breach today.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: It was with a little hesitation that I decided to intervene in the debate and I am sorry to see my hon. Friend—I t think he is the Member for Oxford—leaving, because to some extent he was one of the magnets that caused me to rise. As a matter of fact, I retired from the Chamber lest I should be tempted to speak. Many great men have refused to yield to temptations of that nature. But outside I received an unexpected invitation from one of my officer friends on the Front Bench, who asked me just a few minutes ago, "Do you want to make a speech?" My reply was "No". I did not, because the speech might not be helpful to my own Front Bench, and therefore I still thought that I had better stay away. But on second thoughts I felt it best to give my Front Bench the opportunity of explaining certain things that are confusing the minds of a great many good friends of mine in the general medical practice in Scotland.
I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig)."] There is still an Oxford touch about his approach. It is relevant to compare the salaries of many of the doctors whom I know

in general medical practice with those people who are not so highly paid, and to ask why we should think of the highly-paid person before the person who is not so highly paid. The Government must shape their policies, as this Government have been doing, towards the defence of those who, in times of difficulty, feel the problems presented by smaller incomes more acutely than those with larger incomes.
But that is not the issue at present so far as the general practitioners in Scotland are concerned, and I suspect that the English members of the profession may be in exactly the same position. The doctors were promised an increase of £1,000 a year. That promise was made to the general practitioner throughout the whole United Kingdom and it was applicable in all parts. After the publicity attached to the increment everyone became convinced that this was something that the doctors would fall heir to. For reasons which were legitimate at the time, that was postponed.

Mr. Frederic Harris: The hon. Gentleman is speaking in the wrong debate.

Mr. Rankin: If the hon. Member is capable of utterance, let him approach me and request to be allowed to interrupt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that the Motion refers to pay for Service doctors and dentists. He can allude to general practitioners in the National Health Service only to illustrate the points he makes on the Motion.

Mr. Rankin: I thank you very much for that intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall do my best in the minute or two that remains to me to align the grievances I have expressed on behalf of those in the general medical profession with the grievances that have been expressed about the military services. I think that they are aligned, but there is just this little difference: the general medical practitioners were promised at the end of the year that they would get part of their increase. I have not met one in Scotland so far who has received a penny piece of that increase.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Although I do not directly follow the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig)—as we now know he is!—I venture to say that his suggestion that the reason the Opposition raised the debate is that most of the doctors and dentists in the Services are Conservative supporters is a rather unworthy one, which I hope he will feel able to withdraw on consideration. His second point seemed to be that he is an advocate of equal pay for different work, and hang the sanctity of contract. That is not a doctrine with which this side of the House could agree.
Apart from that, what the Government have so far done is a bad day's work. First, without being in any way personal, I think that it is most unfortunate that the Secretary of State has not been able to be present, except for a very brief visit when he talked with the Opposition Whip—about what, I cannot even suspect. It is marvellous how the Secretary of State manages to be here on occasions when we have long debates! After all, that is what he is paid for. I am afraid that the doctors and dentists in the Forces will feel it a slight reflection upon their standing because he was not able to be with us during the debate.
I deal first with the effect of 20th July. It is hardly anywhere disputed—I do not think the Minister even sought to dispute it—that the undertaking so clearly given to the Service doctors and dentists has not been fulfilled. There is a clear breach of promise there; and the Government's word has been broken. The overall economic position and the overall economic plan put into operation on 20th July last imposed on the Government—we understand this—certain difficulties. The guillotine must fall on the just and unjust alike. It is not much good remembering that the reason for what happened on 20th July was the mistaken economic policies of the Government. They reflated when it was wrong to do so, inflated when it was wrong to do so and deflated when it was wrong to do so. The economic policies are now dictated by the economic circumstances which the Government have brought about; they had to take these measures.
It has been pointed out that the Secretary of State and his Department must bear some responsibilities for the tact that these proposals for increased

pay were not ready by 20th July. It is to some extent due to idleness or lack of urgency on the part of the Department that rates of pay proposals for which all the necessary information available lay in the Department for five or six months were not acted upon, and then the guillotine came down on 20th July and they could not be acted upon.
If the Minister had said "I know that it is unfair, but there it is. We are all in the same boat. We cannot make any exceptions", that would have been something with which we should all have had sympathy, and I am sure that the dentists and doctors would have understood. One does not expect absolute fairness in life. If in the circumstances the Minister had said "I know that it is unfair, but there it is. You will have to lump it. We will give it to you as soon as possible", that would have been an honest and manly way to face the difficulty.

Mr. Reynolds: I said that I was sorry for the individuals concerned, and also that it was on grounds of incomes policy that the 10 per cent. decision was taken. There might be a slight difference between my words and those of the hon. Gentleman, but very little.

Mr. Kershaw: I agree. I have no doubt that the Minister—in so far as I was able to catch every second word or so when he spoke—made the point very much better than I am making it now. I say that that is a reasonable argument. I wish the Minister had stopped there and sat down. But he went on to justify the decision in other ways which were very unfortunate. He said that the Service medical men were rather overpaid for what they did compared with civilian medical men. He instanced the example that Service medical men are on duty in theory for 24 hours a day and that civilian medical men have had their hours of duty extended, and said that it was only fair, therefore, that the Service men should not have an increase in pay. That was a curious argument which seemed to me to be standing justice on its head.

Mr. Reynolds: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that in the House tomorrow after he has read the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Kershaw: Not at all. I could have put it another way and said that


the hon. Gentleman's argument was that as Service medical men were expected to work for 24 hours and as general practitioners were expected to extend their hours of duty, it would only be fair that general practitioners should have an extension of pay but that Service medical men should not have anything because they could not be expected to work more than 24 hours a day. The hon. Gentleman will read tomorrow what he said, provided that the OFFICIAL REPORT got it.
I thought it was rather sinister how the hon. Gentleman went out of his way to give very extensive comparative figures on pay as between civilian and Service medical men. There was no point in giving all those figures except to imply that Service medical men are pretty well off and should be thankful for what they have and that it is the civilian doctors who ought to have an increase in pay and not the medical doctors.
It is clear from the implication of all these figures that the 15 per cent. extra which hitherto has been awarded to medical men in the Services in recognition of the conditions in which they have to operate compared with those of civilian medical men is no longer accepted by the Government. That suspicion grew in me while I was listening to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman went on to confirm our suspicions by explicitly stating that tie whole system is now under review. He said that he could not say—he emphasised it; I distinctly caught it—what the result would be. In fact, the answer is that the whole system of extra pay for Service medical men and the basis upon which they have been paid up to now are brought into doubt.
Why did the hon. Gentleman go out of his way to say this? The first part of his speech was rather short. I think it is very sinister. I am afraid that it will be taken by those in the Services in this way. They will hear about the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave us showing how much recruitment into the medical branches of the Services has improved since 1962, and they will read that now there is only an 11 per cent. shortfall overall, which compares more or less with what there is in civilian life, and they w ill say "Aha, the Government no longer want to attract medical men into the Services, and the promises which they

made in 1962, which have succeeded in attracting men, are now to be scrapped."
It will be known to hon. Members that the Government are sometimes regarded with a certain suspicion by the Services and by those who depend for their pensions and so on upon the decision of Government. All Governments are regarded in this way. I believe that the effect of the figures given by the Minister in his speech and the bringing once again into doubt of the whole system upon which men were recruited and upon which their future life and their pensions depend will lower the esteem which the Forces have for any Government.
That is why I think that this has been a bad day's work. This will not stop in the medical and dental branches of the Armed Forces. The other arms will consider how far they can trust the word of a Government who do this, and far Governments in general are to be trusted to keep the promises which they make when they enlist an officer or a man in his youth. So, because of the decision and the arguments which were put forward, I think that this has been a bad day's work for the House, for the Services and for Government in general.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: During this debate we have heard a good deal from the Government Benches that bears very small relation to the subject before us. One hon. Member put forward the case for special treatment for such people as clinical teachers and those in the hospital service. I have no doubt that there are good reasons why those persons should have special consideration, but that is not the subject of our debate.
Equally, we have heard from the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) something about social justice and various other things besides, most of which had nothing to do with the subject of the debate and certainly nothing to do with the point, which is that in 1962 a new deal for Service medical officers was negotiated and agreed. Since then, the criteria upon which these salaries were based were understood to be established. This fact was underlined yet again by paragraph 4 of Cmnd. No. 2903, to which reference has been made.
Of course, changes in the salary structure for Service officers could be made, but surely only after reasonable negotiations have taken place with the officers concerned, and certainly there should not have been a sudden change such as that which came into effect as a result of the Secretary of State's reply to a Parliamentary Question on 20th December.
This afternoon, we are really debating the remuneration of a small section of the community who have answered a dual vocation. Firstly, as doctors or dentists they perform a service to members of the community and, secondly, as members of the Armed Forces they have been called to serve their country. But it is to their disadvantage, as has been emphasised today, that they are few in number. I fear only that soon they will be fewer still if the breach of faith from which currently they suffer is not removed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) claimed that, in his constituency, there was probably a greater concentration of Service medical officers than in any other part of the country. I would put forward a similar claim, because I have in my constituency not only numerous Service camps and depots on the edge of Salisbury Plain, but also an R.A.F. hospital and the Army medical establishment at Tidworth. It is proper that the House should hear what some of these doctors have to say about the subject of the debate. I should like to quote one squadron leader, who started his letter with the words:
I should be obliged if you would bring to the notice of our Prime Minister the sense of disgust and horror with which I read of his Defence Minister's statement of 22nd December regarding Service medical officers' pay.
He ended:
It would almost seem some part of the purpose is so to destroy confidence that the medical branches may shrink to insignificance from wastage and cessation of recruiting.
As though to confirm that thought, another letter ended:
I have taken this as a shattering blow to my confidence in the Service ministry and have decided that I will risk no further blow. I will accordingly be leaving the Royal Air Force on my optional retiring date, which is October, 1968.
On 5th January, in the light of these letters, and of certain telephone calls in

addition, I wrote to the Prime Minister, but so far I have had no answer. Nor has there been an acknowledgment to my letter. I would not know whether or not this is the fault of the Postmaster-General, but it shows some gross incompetence on the part of at least one Government Department. But let it not be thought that the words of these Service medical officers are the hasty words of unthinking people. They have very real cause for complaint, as has been adequately established today.
It was perhaps bad luck on these officers that the negotiations on their pay should have been interrupted by the axe which fell on 20th July. In the circumstances, however, many Service medical officers appreciated that some delay in the implementation of the solemn undertakings which had previously been given on their pay was acceptable. But, on 20th December, the Secretary of State informed the representatives of the B.M.A. that the Government had decided to make this miserly award of a mere 10 per cent. It is impossible to surmise how this figure was reached, for this increase seems to be unrelated either to the figure paid to non-medical Service officers or to that awarded to their colleagues in the National Health Service.
The award can be condemned on two grounds—first, for its inadequacy and, secondly, for the fact that it destroys, in effect, the existing structure of remuneration and the basis and the criteria upon which awards have been made. Apparently the future is to bear no relation whatever to past agreements.
Perhaps the priorities have changed. Perhaps the criteria of 1962 no longer exist. But if the criteria have changed, then a new structure must be negotiated and it should not be imposed without warning upon these unfortunate officers. But I cannot believe that the Secretary of State or his Ministers are happy about this miserable award. Nor can I believe that their consciences are entirely clear in their predicament. To reverse undertakings which were freely given cannot be the choice of honourable men, but the Secretary of State is one voice alone in the Cabinet and, whatever he and his junior Ministers may say or do, they have to fight a solid phalanx of disinterested


colleagues. What do their colleagues care if Service doctors do not get their due and just awards? What should they care if commitments entered into in a previous Parliament remain unhonoured?
I ask, therefore, whether it may not be that the Secretary of State, the B.M.A. and the doctors all together have been sold down the river by the other members of the Cabinet. But, in this situation, I have no doubt that if the Secretary of State is to retain one atom of respect, he should go back to the Cabinet and fight on behalf of the Services which he represents. I am prepared to give the Secretary of State the doubt that he is still in his office because he wishes to fight another day and to argue the case yet again, perhaps with the renewed strength which will have been given to him by this debate. But if he should fail in another approach to the Cabinet, or if I am wrong and the Secretary of State does believe that he can gloss over this breach of faith, he should resign immediately.

6.20 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: shall be brief because other hon. Members wish to take part in this rather short debate. I do not want to repeat the arguments used so far, although—I am sorry that he is not here—I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig), who produced a speech which might have been suitable at a university union. He seemed more keen on making short debating points than with dealing equitably with a serious problem.
I am afraid that, down the years, government has never found it very easy to be a good employer to the Forces. It is also true to say that, if savings have to be made, there is a greater predisposition in the Labour Party to make those savings at the expense of the Forces than a there is in the Conservative Party. It seems to me that in this particular instance we have witnessed one of the most cowardly exercises which we have ever come across. Here is a body of men who, as hon. Members have pointed out, are not really able to defend themselves publicly. Even their families have to feel somewhat inhibited about putting up their case, and this is known by the Government. It is all too easy for any cohesive effort being made by these men for them

to find themselves in conflict with military, air force and naval law. Therefore it is our duty to voice this, even, as so obviously appeared to be in the mind of the hon. Member for Lancaster, we are dealing with a comparatively small and comparatively well rewarded group when compared with some of the lower income earners in the country.
Nevertheless, our duty is very clear. We must make the case which we believe should be made, which is that no duty is more important for a Service Minister than that he should put his Department before the Treasury. It is an old story—we have all suffered from it in our experiences of the Armed Forces and under more than one Government—that the Treasury do not like the Services. They never have. They regard them as an unproductive necessity, to be kept to the bare bones. They will also flog a willing horse if they can do so. If they can get people to do jobs at a lower rank than the job merits, they will always do it. They will always hold them on a temporary basis if they agree in order to avoid continuing to pay them at a higher rate. Year in, year out, one has seen this happen.
Obviously a group of this kind is very vulnerable where the rewards are comparatively high compared with the lowest wage earners in the country. Nevertheless, the skills demanded are such and the need for the ability to instil confidence are so great in these men that the Government have a very special duty. It horrified me to hear the hon. Member for Lancaster dismiss out of court the idea that if the Government has made a pledge or a declared intention, as was printed in paragraph 4 of the White Paper which has already been referred to, the Government could with impunity go back on this on the grounds that the country is faced with a rather difficult financial situation. Nobody denies this difficulty, but I hope that the Government are not trying to unshoulder some of the responsibility for having made it what it is.
Nevertheless, here is a clear case where Government employees of a very highly skilled order were given a firm undertaking where new entrants have come into that type of work since that pledge was given on the understanding that the


pledge would be honoured. It has now been broken, and it is now up to the Secretary of State and his henchmen, the Ministers of State and the Under-Secretaries, to insist on the Government honouring that pledge and state that if the Prime Minister wants them to stay in the Government they will see that pledge honoured come wind come weather. That is what we ought to be pressing the Government to do.
The Secretary of State may have had more and important affairs of State to attend to this afternoon, but he has at last come back and we welcome him.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I intended no discourtesy by being absent. I was concerned with the matters we were discussing after Questions, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would have wished me to be so concerned.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I fully recognise that there are affairs of State which have to take priority over business in the House of Commons. I fully accept that, and we are glad to see the right hon. Gentleman here for the final stages of the debate. I hope he will at least believe that the feeling is very strong indeed in this matter.
In the course of interrupting his right hon. Friend, I made a short quotation from a letter which I had received from the wife of a wing commander who is a medical officer. He served with a very excellent R.A.F. hospital in my constituency, outside Ely, and he is now serving abroad.
Before the debate I had the advantage of seeing certain correspondence which had passed between this officer and the B.M.A. on a confidential basis. I do not intend to quote from it, but I want to tell the House frankly the impression I have of it. The hon. Gentleman, in opening the debate for the Government today, made some play of the fact that the B.M.A. was representing these officers and putting their difficulties to the Government and that therefore these officers were in a privileged position compared with officers employed in another capacity in the Forces.
Having read that correspondence, I was rather led to presume that these officers

will be a tiny minority and that, being a minority interest, the full force which the B.M.A. would give in support of a case from doctors was hardly to be shown in this particular case. I can well understand the B.M.A., in negotiating a National Health Service pay award simultaneously with this specialised negotiation, would naturally have to put the National Health Service award first. It may be that in the forefront of this the Government have been assuming that the B.M.A. would put in the strongest possible case that it could for these officers when, in fact, all that the B.M.A. had time to do would be to present the case which they knew to be a smaller and perhaps less essential case to them when one takes into consideration all the doctors for whom they are responsible.
The Secretary of State would make a great mistake if he states that what the B.M.A. have said is all that there is to be said upon this matter regarding the remuneration of doctors. One of the things which concerned me in what the right hon. Gentleman said in opening for the Government in the debate was his suggestion that the present margin of shortage in the three Services for medical and dental officers is 11 per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively. That is still a shortage of a major order. It is still a shortage which is very important, because so many of the people who are patients of these officers are serving abroad. This is perhaps one of the factors which has been lost sight of in the course of the debate.
We can make comparisons with doctors here and doctors in the Forces who are serving in Britain. But we have lost sight of the fact that at any moment these doctors can be posted abroad, of the number of times that Service families have to move, and of the fact that Service men may have to be separated from their families because there may be no married quarters at the far end. That puts them in a very special category. Having given the impetus, which the Conservative Government rightly did to get more doctors and dentists to join the Forces, it seems stupid indeed to start easing up on that enticement. We still have a gap to bridge compared with the numbers on the nominal roll and those on the establishment.
Bearing in mind the state of the world today and the distances which have to be


covered by the Armed Forces in carrying out peace-keeping duties, this is not the right time to break promises to these men whom we so admire for the way that they do their duty. This is not the moment for us to start easing up on the enticement of getting doctors into the Services. I would have thought there is a stronger case for that enticement to continue until the gap is fully bridged.
In conclusion, the words, which this particular lady who wrote to me had to say at the end of one of her letters is something which perhaps sums up the feelings of many of us when she said:
It is dreadful to feel so helpless at the hands of a dishonest and amoral Government. My husband has put in his resignation but has small hope of its being accepted. If it is we shall certainly consider emigrating. I know that many of us feel this way too. So if the Government is trying to divert doctors from the Forces to reinforce the crumbling National Health Service, I do not think they will succeed. Very few really want to emigrate. For us it would be a very hard and hurtful step, but there is a limit to the amount people can take from this present Government.
That is what we have to impress on the Government. There is a limit, and the limit has been reached.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I want to speak briefly about something which has not been mentioned at any great length this afternoon. We have had arguments from these benches as to why we believe that the Government have made wrong decisions, and a number of questions have been put to the right hon. Gentleman time and time again. I can tell the Secretary of State, who does not know because he has not been here—and we understand why—that we are very much looking forward to hearing his right hon. Friend speaking again, because, although he spoke for 20 minutes, he did not answer the three really important questions which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) put to him. We have gone through them again and we have put our argument and reasons, and now we look forward to hearing him again, because we think that he must do better than he did in answering questions about why the Government have done what they have done.
I want to speak for a few minutes about the effect on recruiting of what the

Government have done. I want the right hon. Gentleman to direct his mind to this and to give us the benefit of his views. There is no doubt that Service doctors and dentists are below strength. The figures are somewhat confusing, because in his speech the Minister gave us some figure, which I wrote down, of the total strengths of doctors and dentists in the Services, figures differing substantially from those which he gave in a Written Answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes on 25th January.
This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the total of doctors and dentists, whereas in that Written Answer he referred to non-specialist medical and dental officers. Taking the total, as he did this afternoon, one gets shortages of 6 per cent., 10 per cent. and 12 per cent., but if the specialists are ignored and one counts only the non-specialists and, therefore, I assume, more junior officers, the picture is very different and, according to the figures given on 25th January, the shortage among non-specialists and, therefore, presumably, among junior ranks, is very substantial.
In the Navy, for example, the number of non-specialist medical officers has been going steadily down for the last five years and out of the present establishment of 247 there are now only 170. This is a very considerable shortfall, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously whether he believes that what he has done over the last few months will increase recruitment. We hear a great deal about increasing recruitment and about shortages, but does the right hon. Gentleman honestly expect the House to believe that any of this will help recruiting? Is it not absolutely logical to conclude that what he has done will have the reverse effect? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about it?
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one factor in connection with the future. He spoke severely about the B.M.A. and the possibility, as he said, that it might blacklist the Services and he said that he would be very disappointed and cross with it if it did. Even if it does not, and I hope that it does not, does he seriously suggest that people in the B.M.A., or senior doctors, or for that matter senior members of the Forces will tell young men thinking of coming into


the Forces that there is a jolly good career for them in the Forces? Does it not matter what these people say? Is it not the case that young men starting in any walk of life inquire round about as to what is a good thing and what is not?
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that what he has done, apart from saving the Government a little money, will help with his own problem? He is in charge of personnel and with seeing that the men and women in the Forces get proper medical and dental attention. I hope that he will be able to tell us that it will help, but I do not think that he can, and the Government deserve censure because of it.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When the Minister spoke, he seemed somewhat surprised that it should be expected of a Government that, confronted with a Motion such as this, some idea or outline of the Government's answer should be put before the House at an early stage of the debate. I want to make it clear that it would be most deplorable if we were to get into the habit of following the precedent of a debate last year—I think that it was on 31st October—when the House was left to debate a Motion of censure upon the Government for several hours without being told what was the Government's case, good or bad. A debate in the House can proceed usefully only if there is an early statement of the Government's view and of their answer to the charges brought against them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not run away with the view that he was performing some unusual and exceptional service by making, at any rate, some reply at that stage to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish).
This has been a brief and concentrated debate. It could be brief and concentrated for the simple reason that the case which underlies the Motion is itself of a simple character. I shall restate it in only the briefest terms. I must recur to the White Paper of last March and to paragraph 4, which has been repeatedly quoted. It said that
since 1962 the pay of Service medical and dental officers below the rank of major-general has taken account of increases awarded

to civilian doctors and dentists in the National Health Service.
It then mentioned that the
rates of remuneration in the National Health Service are under consideration and, in consequence, it has not been possible to include in the attached Appendices revised rates of pay …
It concluded:
Revised rates of pay, which will be effective from 1st April, 1966, will be published separately.
In that paragraph there were two pledges, one implicit and the other explicit, both of which have been broken by the Government's decision announced in Christmas week in a Written Answer by the Minister. I shall deal first with the implicit pledge.
The form and almost the words of that paragraph were identical with those of the corresponding paragraph of the White Paper of 1964, the previous implementation of the Grigg system. The paragraph itself reminds its readers that since 1962 Service pay had taken account of increases awarded to civilian doctors and dentists. Nobody who read that paragraph, whether inside or outside the Services, would have supposed that there was to be a departure in principle on this occasion from the past relationship between National Health Service pay and Service pay.
We have made a discovery in this debate. The Minister of State told us in so many words quite candidly that the present decision has "broken away from the analogue" that has hitherto applied. Those were his words. He did not mince matters. "We have broken away", he said, "from the analogue".
That, then, is the decision which has been taken and which we have at last managed to extract from the Government following a Written Answer in Christmas week, nine months after the White Paper, and by dint of a Motion in as critical terms as a Motion can be framed, which we are discussing now in January, 1967. We have now extracted the fact that the analogue has been abandoned and that a new basis of relationship, whatever it may be, has been adopted between civilian pay and Service pay. No one could possibly have assumed, have imagined indeed, from that paragraph of the White Paper, that this was the Government's intention.
We have been told something of the reasons for the Government's decision. We have been told that they now find that the balance of recruitment between the Services and the National Health Service has changed since 1962. They say, "We are not now so relatively anxious to attract people at almost any cost to the medical services of the Armed Forces. The whole balance and picture has changed". The Minister spent a long time very clearly pointing this out. He said that the relative recruitment between the two was different now from that which had existed in 1962 and that different considerations now apply.

Mr. Reynolds: I gave a large number of figures because it appeared to be the wish of the House to have the figures, but I must insist that my main case was that this has been done on incomes policy grounds, not because of a change in recruiting.

Mr. Powell: I am coming to the incomes policy in a moment. Now I am dealing with the fact that by the Government's own admission they have broken away from the analogue which has underlain the last two awards. They did this not only without any indication that they intended to do it, but they did it in contrast to the plain implications of the words of their own White Paper. They did so for reasons which were in no way a matter of national emergency, which were in no way connected with any financial crisis, which were in no way connected with the prices and incomes policy. They had not just noticed this on 20th July. They did not look at the recruiting figures for the Services and for the National Health Service on 20th July and say, "Goodness me, there has been a change in the relative recruitment to the Armed Forces and the National Health Service". As the hon. Member made clear, whatever change of this character has been taking place in fact, has been taking place gradually.
If they intended to break away from the analogue, why did they not say so in the White Paper? Why did they not, at any rate, include some sort of hint and say, "By the way, we are looking at this on a broader basis than hitherto. We are examining the analogue". They did not say that at all. They used a perfectly stereotyped expression which to

the reader could have only one implication—that there was no change and that it was a matter of formality that, unlike the previous White Papers the actual rates did not happen to be yet included in the appendices when it was published.
Thus they broke the implicit pledge contained in their own White Paper. They broke it in a way which has been fully disclosed only this afternoon and on grounds about which we have been given an inkling for the first time this afternoon.
Then there was the explicit pledge that the revised rates of pay, as heretofore as on all analogous previous occasions, though to be published separately, would be effective from 1st April, 1966. This direct breach of a plain, printed, published promise and undertaking they excuse on grounds of their incomes policy White Papers.
Whatever may be the merits or the justification of the general policy underlying those White Papers, the application to this case, to the pay of the Service doctors and dentists, is no more or less than a sophistry and a twist. The words in the second of those White Papers were,
Where a commitment existed on or before 20th July, 1966 to review pay with effect from a prior date, but the amount of any improvement had not been determined by 20th July, the operative date should be deferred for six months.
That is the announcement to which the Government pretend they are referring their decision in this case. Two views may be taken of the policy and justice of a Government who, having a commitment to review pay with effect from a previous date and being in negotiation with their employees about it, then say, while those negotiations are still going on, "By the way, as a result of our economic position and our pay pause, we do not now propose to implement anything on which we agree until six months after that prior date." But there is no analogy, or only a grotesque analogy, between that situation and the position of this tiny number, some 2,000–3,000 people in the whole of the Defence Forces, whose pay rates did not happen on this occasion to be included in the appendix to the White Paper of March, 1966. It is absurd to pretend that this case has any analogy with any of the other injustices and absurdities which are


being committed under the Government's incomes policy White Papers.
We have had mention of the firemen, for instance. I will not enter one way or another into the justice or otherwise of the firemen's case and grievance. But here is not a case of all the firemen being deferred; here is a case of 1 per cent. only of the firemen being deferred on grounds which are wholly accidental and wholly artificial.
The Government also say, "You know, we are not treating these people as members of the Armed Forces. They fall to be treated as doctors." The Minister told us, "Their pay comes into a different time scale from that of other officers", though he had the grace immediately to admit that their pay has hitherto always been adjusted at the same time as the pay of other officers. The Service medical and dental officers would be very glad indeed if they were being treated on the basis that they were doctors; for the doctors' pay increase is being actually paid out six months before the increase of the Service doctors and dentists. Throughout the debate we have heard how different has been the rate of increase agreed for the doctors in the National Health Service and the 10 per cent., that arbitrary figure of 10 per cent., which has been accorded to the Service medical and dental officers. Away with the argument, "We are not treating these people as Service officers, we are treating them as doctors". Would, indeed, that the Government on this occasion had treated them as doctors. They would have settled for that.
There are two aspects to this policy decision which we have been discussing. There are two rôles which the Government have to play in taking the sort of decision which the Minister and the Government have taken wrongly in this instance.
In one rôle, they are the paymasters of their servants. They are deciding in the name of the public what rates of pay they shall offer in order to retain or recruit to the public service the numbers and quality of servants whom they require. If they err in their decisions on that score, the result will be that they will not recruit so many or so good as the public service requires and they will have

to stand, in consequence, the criticism of this House and of the country.
I may say, on this matter of the effect on recruitment, that the Minister of State gave a very misleading picture by looking at the totality of Service medical and dental officers. He should rather have looked at the general duty officers in the Services if he wanted to see the effect on recruiting and the writing on the wall. For example, in the Army, on the general duties side, there is a deficiency of 33 per cent. below peace-time establishment at the rank of major, and below the rank of major a deficiency, I understand, of 70 per cent. Therefore, let not the hon. Gentleman be deluded or try to delude others with generalised figures. Let him look to those points in the Service where the realities of recruitment show most readily and where the damage is soonest done.
This then is one rôle of the Government—to recruit the right numbers and quality of people for the public service. But there is another rôle, and in that rôle the Government has decisively and dangerously failed. It is the Government's rôle as the guardian of the public faith. I do not often have a kind word to say for the Prices and Incomes Board, but I would commend to the Government its statement of principle in this matter. It occurs in paragraph 25 of the Board's report on Armed Forces Pay, Cmnd. 2881.
The assurance of a biennial pay review by which Service emoluments are brought broadly into line with those outside the Services has now been in existence for some years. It features in the leaflets and booklets … and provides a basis for the career expectations of those who have joined. It could not in our view be abruptly withdrawn without adversely affecting the retention of personnel when a period of engagement has been completed as well as recruitment. Unless and until the Government duly notifies the members of the Armed Forces that a new system of review of their emoluments is to be adopted, we consider that there is a commitment.
We on this side of the House consider that there is a commitment in plain words which has been directly broken by the Government's decision. Let not the Minister talk about 1962 and the implementation in 1962 of the Grigg settlement in two phases. On that occasion the Government told the public and the Services what they were going to do, and they did it. Here, the Government have


said one thing, have promised one thing, and have done another.
There have been a good many poignant illustrations quoted during this debate of the corrosive effect which a breach of faith of this kind can have on morale in the Services. Sir Alexander Drummond, who was lately Director General of Army Medical Services, wrote to me today saying:
I have never during my 36 years' service met with such disappointment and bitterness in the Medical Services as we have today.
But this sort of thing goes further than those who are the immediate victims. If one strikes at the faith of government, if a Government says, "Yes, we printed that, we said that, but we are not going to do it because things have changed", the whole relationship between Government and the citizen is in danger of being altered.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said that he had been absent during most of the debate because he w as busy over the relations of this country with Malta—with Malta, Mr. Speaker. The faith of Government in carrying out a pledged word—nothing is more precious than that; nothing ought to be more precious to this House, and we on this side will assert it.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: With the permission of the House, I should like to speak for a short while at the conclusion of this debate, having made most of the points which I wished to make earlier—although, listening to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, one would have thought that I had not spoken at all. A number of my points were taken up, twisted and thrown back into the pages of HANSARD in a completely different form. A number of other points which I was alleged to have made I never made. It might have been better had I followed my original idea of winding up the debate rather than make two speeches.
I was interested in listening to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) because one is fully aware from utterances outside the House that he is not exactly a supporter of the Government's general incomes policy. It is therefore completely logical that he should be prepared to put his name to a Motion of censure of this kind, because

he disagrees with the basic philosophy and policy which the Government have followed since 20th July.
I am, however, a little surprised to see the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the Motion, because I thought that he accepted the need for some kind of incomes policy. It is a little much that we should have a Motion of censure signed by the Leader of the Opposition on individual cases which arise from a policy which, on the whole, I understood him to accept. It may be that other hon. Members opposite accept it, it may be that some do not; but one is used to hearing the arguments of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because we know without any doubt whatsoever exactly where he stands.

Hon. Members: Get on with it.

Mr. Reynolds: If hon. Members opposite had wanted to hear the case, they could have been in the House when I spoke earlier for 20 minutes. They have now come along for the vote. I do not blame them for that; I have done it myself on many occasions. But if they wanted to hear the Government's case, they should have been here two hours ago. Having stated the Government's case, I believe clearly and firmly, I now have to reply to some points made in the debate.
I must remind the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that the shortage of majors and captains in the medical services, which I deplore as much as anyone else, is hardly something for which the present Administration can be blamed, because that is a gap which we inherited from the previous Administration. It takes more than a couple of years to get to the rank of major in the Army or equivalent rank in the other Services.
I must correct one point which I made earlier. When giving way to a number of hon. Members opposite, I gave the impression that the B.M.A. had agreed not only that the date of operation of the 10 per cent. increase should be 1st October but that the date of payment should be 1st July. What I should have said was that it agreed that the date of operation should be 1st October but that it believed that the date of implementation should have been 1st January, the


same date as the doctors. However, by that time, the Government's policy for the period of restraint had come in, so the Government insisted that it should be delayed for a further six months in the same way as other increases which were pending at that time were delayed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) and the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) referred to the problems which might be encountered by people who were expecting a considerably larger increase than they have got and who might have entered into hire purchase, mortgage and other commitments. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West referred to a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health about how matters of this nature might be dealt with in the National Health Service. We are prepared to look into the situation, but obviously my hon. Friend will not expect a commitment from me today.
A number of hon. Members complained that there had been delay by the Government in dealing with this matter. I made it clear in my opening speech that discussions were started with the B.M.A. in May once the analogue on which one would normally have to work had been agreed for the doctors in the National Health Service.
We started discussions with the B.M.A. in May. The discussions went on until the end of June, when they were adjourned for internal Governmental discussions, after which we would have expected to go back to the B.M.A. for further discussions. Therefore, the discussions were still going on in the Government on 20th July pending further consultation later with the B.M.A. but, unfortunately, as I said earlier, they were caught by the announcement of the 20th July measures.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met B.M.A. representatives in October and again on 21st December, on which date the B.M.A. representatives were told of the Government's decision of a 10 per cent. increase starting from October but not payable until July, 1967. There was, therefore, no delay, nor was there any delay in informing the House. Hon. Members opposite have complained that the announcement was made just

before the Christmas Recess. I hope that I have made it clear that the final stage of discussion with the B.M.A. was not until 21st December, so that we could hardly have made an announcement any more quickly than we did. I also assure the House that the B.M.A. frankly put its views and told the Secretary of State what it thought of the offer at the time. The B.M.A.'s position was perfectly clear to us at that stage.
The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) asked the extent of the shortage of doctors in the country as a whole as distinct from the Forces, and said that he believed the figure to be about 10 per cent. I am sorry to say that apparently there are no accurate figures which I can give, because the answer depends upon a large number of assumptions which one might like to make, for example, about the desirable doctor-patient ratio in the National Health Service. I said that I would try to get a figure, but after consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health I am advised that it is not possible to give an accurate figure of this kind. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West grins. He has probably had the same problem of trying to find information at some stage. I therefore cannot answer the question.
I am surprised that the Opposition should put down a Motion of censure of this nature at this time. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes, who moved the Motion, made it clear that he was aware that the B.M.A. was in contact with the Prime Minister and had asked my right hon. Friend to receive a deputation from the Association to discuss tilt, 10 per cent. offer. I am amazed that whet the B.M.A. was still discussing this matter and had decided to ask to see the Prime Minister, the Opposition should put down a Motion of censure.

Mr. Edward Heath: Why not?

Mr. Reynolds: The Leader of the Opposition asks, "Why not?". I can only say that to interpose in what the B.M.A. until this weekend considered was a matter in which it had not finally exhausted all its rights of appeal a Motion of censure which, in effect, demands the dismissal of the Government as a whole,


can lead only to polarisation in this House and to a majority in the Lobbies later tonight supporting the Government and in favour of the Government's policy. It cannot lead to anything else. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are fully aware of that. It can lead only to a majority in the lobbies against the Motion and it will mean that this House will have supported the action of the Government and nullified any good that the B.M.A. might have hoped to achieve.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. Is not the Minister's argument almost a contempt of the House? Is it to be said, Mr. Speaker, that because this House wishes to discuss a matter, it therefore becomes almost insoluble between the Government and anyone else? Is not that contempt of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will never comment on arguments unless they are out of order.

Mr. Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Rather than polarise the issue by putting down a Motion of censure, it would have been much more sensible had the debate been conducted in the same way as, I understand, the Opposition intend to conduct the debate for the remainder of the day, namely, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, thus avoiding polarisation and debating the issue on merit.

Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, therefore, that if the Motion is withdrawn the Prime Minister is prepared to reconsider the decision announced last December?

Mr. Reynolds: As the Opposition were aware before they put down the Motion of censure, that the B.M.A. had asked to see the Prime Minister, presumably they thought out all the implications and would not wish now suddenly to change their minds. The damage has been done and we shall have to vote against the Motion of censure in the Lobbies in the very near future.
I was asked, although I had explained earlier, why the Government had taken the, decision to give only a 10 per cent. increase to roughly 2,000 doctors and between 400 and 500 dentists. I made it clear, and I must repeat, that it was

for incomes policy reasons. I know that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West does not agree with that, but we as a Government could not accept that having stated clearly on 20th July what our policy would be, we should apply it to university clinical teachers, probation officers and the entire Civil Service, the Fire Service and pretty well every other industry, affecting millions of people, and then blatantly disregard it for a comparatively small number of people in Government employment.
If we are to have a policy of this nature, which the Government believe to be essential in present circumstances, it must be applied to everybody and we cannot put ourselves in a position of giving way, even to pressure groups in this House, to give increases to some people at the expense of refusing to give such increases to others.
I have a list of over 20 unions and groups of people, representing over 1 million employees, in a similar position, having, in effect, been promised an increase before 20th July.
They have all been affected by the announcement of 20th July and by subsequent Government statements on the period of restraint covering the next six months. We cannot justify treating anybody differently. If we did, we would find it impossible publicly to justify the unpopular action that the Government have had to take because of the economic situation earlier last year.
The part that slightly annoys me is that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will be going into the Lobby to accuse the Government of an open breach of faith in a wages issue. They have, apparently, completely forgotten what they did to the teachers and to nurses in 1962, at the time when the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was Minister of Health. He dealt with the nurses in 1962. There was a shortage of 23,000 nurses in the National Health Service at that time, but that did not stop him from sending a circular to the Whitley Council advising it of the Government's policy, and then justifying in this House an increase of only 2½ per cent. for a group of people who were much worse paid than those with whom we are dealing now.

Mr. Powell: rose—

Mr. Reynolds: I will give way presently. The right hon. Gentleman said in the House on 12th March, 1962:
I do not for a moment accept that one can have regard to the merits of a claim in complete isolation from the economic situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12 March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 874.]
When the right hon. Gentleman was in Government he supported a pay pause policy. Now that he is in Opposition, because politically it suits him he says that all these things should be left to the free will of the market.

Mr. Powell: I never promised anything I did not perform.

Mr. Reynolds: What I must say to that is that the right hon. Gentleman nobbled the horse before it started. He sent a message to the Whitley Council telling it to be careful in what it was doing and not to give too big an increase. The present Government were perfectly honest. We stated publicly on 20th July what we would do and that it would apply to everybody.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has changed his mind on a wages policy and so, apparently, have one or two others too. I have mentioned some of those who were dealt with in 1962—the teachers and the nurses—and there were the Post Office

engineers and the Admiralty workers. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said, "Please do not throw Grigg back at us" because he knew that that was a weak point of the Government in 1962.

The right hon. Member for Harrogate, who was then Under-Secretary of State for the Army, justified the Government's action in 1962 on Grigg, which affected a large number of people in the Armed Forces, by saying that it would be quite wrong for an exception to be made of the Services in this matter. He said, in other words, that it was quite wrong that the Services should be treated any differently from anybody else during the pay pause period in 1962.

What I have not been told by any right hon. or hon. Gentleman is why it was quite wrong in 1962 but was quite right in 1966 to treat the Services differently. We on this side regret the need for the incomes standstill and the period of restraint. Nevertheless, as I said, we obviously have, according to public opinion polls, the support of public opinion behind us. Heaven help the party opposite once we do something which the polls show is really popular.

Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 232, Noes 318.

Division No. 260.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cary, Sir Robert
Forrest, George


Astor, John
Channon, H. P. G.
Fortescue, Tim


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Foster, Sir John


AwdTy, Daniel
Clark, Henry
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Baker, W. H. K.
Clegg, Walter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Batsford, Brian
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Glover, Sir Douglas


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cordle, John
Glyn, Sir Richard


Belt, Ronald
Corfield, F. V.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor


Bessell, Peter
Crawley, Aidan
Gower, Raymond


Biffen, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Grant, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Grant-Ferris, R.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Crowder, F. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Grieve, Percy


Blaker, Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Body, Richard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dance, James
Gurden, Harold


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Braine, Bernard
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)


Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col. SirWalter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Doughty, Charles
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bryan, Paul
Drayson, G. B.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hawkins, Paul


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Eden, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Burden, F. A.
Eyre, Reginald
Heseltine, Michael


Campbell, Gordon
Farr, John
Higgins, Terence L.


Carlisle, Mark
Fisher, Nigel
Hill, J. E. B.




Hirst, Geoffrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Royle, Anthony


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Holland, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Hooson, Emlyn
Miscampbell, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sharples, Richard


Hunt, John
Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper
Sinclair, Sir George


Iremonger, T. L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Smith, John


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stainton, Keith


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stodart, Anthony


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Murton, Oscar
Summers, Sir Spencer


Jopling, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Teeling, Sir William


Kershaw, Anthony
Nott, John
Temple, John M.


Kimball, Marcus
Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tilney, John


Kirk, Peter
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kitson, Timothy
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lambton, Viscount
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pardoe, John
Wall, Patrick


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walters, Dennis


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton, John
Webster, David


Longden, Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Loveys, W. H.
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lubbock, Eric
Pounder, Rafton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Prior, J. M. L.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


McMaster, Stanley
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Worsley, Marcus


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wylie, N. R.


Maginnis, John E.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Marten, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maude, Angus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Roots, William



Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Eadie, Alex


Albu, Austen
Carmichael, Neil
Edelman, Maurice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Alldritt, Walter
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Allen, Scholefield
Chapman, Donald
Ellis, John


Anderson, Donald
Coe, Denis
English, Michael


Archer, Peter
Coleman, Donald
Ennals, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Ensor, David


Ashley, Jack
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fernyhough, E.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Crawshaw, Richard
Finch, Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cronin, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Baxter, William
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkoston)


Bellonger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bence, Cyril
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Floud, Barnard


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Foley, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Binns, John
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ford, Ben


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Boardman, H.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Freeson, Reginald


Booth, Albert
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Gardner, Tony


Boston, Terence
Delargy, Hugh
Garrett, W. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dell, Edmund
Ginsburg, David


Boyden, James
Dempsey, James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dewar, Donald
Gourlay, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dickens, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dobson, Ray
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)
Donnelly, Desmond
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Buchan, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hamling, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hannan, William







Harper, Joseph
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Haseldine, Norman
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rose, Paul


Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hazell, Bert
Manuel, Archie
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mapp, Charles
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David
Ryan, John


Henig, Stanley
Mayhew, Christopher
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mellish, Robert
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Hilton, W. S.
Mendelson, J. J.
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mikardo, Ian
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Horner, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moonman, Eric
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Skeffington, Arthur


Howie, W.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Slater, Joseph


Hoy, James
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Snow, Julian


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Steele,Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Albert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hunter, Adam
Neal, Harold
Stonehouse, John


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Newens, Stan
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se A Spenb'gh)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Priilip(Derby,S.)
Swain, Thomas


Janner, Sir Barnett
Norwood, Christopher
Swingler, Stephen


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon
Symonds, J. B.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oram, Albert E.
Thornton, Ernest


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orbach, Maurice
Tinn, James


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Tomney, Frank


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Urwin, T. W.


Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Judd, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Kelley, Richard
Paget, R. T.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kenyon, Clifford
Palmer, Arthur
Wallace, George


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Watkins, David (Consett)


Leadbitter, Ted
Park, Trevor
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Weitzman, David


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wellbeioved, James


Lee, John (Reading)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitaker, Ben


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pentland, Norman
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Lipton, Marcus
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Loughlin, Charles
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


McBride, Neil
Randall, Harry
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McCann, John
Rankin, John
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


MacColl, James
Redhead, Edward
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


MacDermot, Niall
Rees, Merlyn
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Macdonald, A. H.
Reynolds, G. W.
Winterbottom, R. E.




Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Richard, Ivor
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, Victor


Mackie, John
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Zilliacus, K.


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)



Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Mr. Charles Grey and Mr. George Lawson.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Orders of the Day — DRUGS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

7.22 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The House and, the Minister will, I hope, welcome this opportunity to discuss in a short time—even shorter than we had hoped—the exceedingly difficult social problem of drug addiction and the misuse of drugs. As hon. Members know well enough, there is increasing public disquiet about this, and among many social workers—teachers, doctors, parents and others who are already at grips with this subject—there is something akin to dismay.
Not the least cause of public anxiety is the difficulty we have in measuring the extent of the problem. Perhaps the first thing to make clear, therefore, is that we do not know the facts. This has one very unfortunate result. It leads to a tendency for opinion to polarise. Without the facts, there is inevitably alarming talk about the tip of the iceberg and some generalised exaggerations resulting from particular tragedies and scandals, others are provoked into taking hysterical attitudes, while others declare that a mountain has been made out of a molehill and that it is no more than a passing manifestation of the youth revolution. I hope that this debate will, if nothing else, enable us to establish some perspective.
In my view, none of these extremes reflects the real position. I do not believe that addiction or the misuse of drugs in this country is yet out of hand. However, both have moved against us very rapidly, particularly in the last year or two, and we are now going to have to move very fast to catch up. The situation can no longer be met by a well-intentioned conspiracy to ignore it.
Although the facts are hard to establish, we have some ominous indications. We have the evidence of the courts, where almost every day—and no longer simply in London—we have evidence of misuse and some evidence of trafficking. We also have the recent prognosis of the Vera Institute of New York. Of course, it is prudent to treat with reserve a survey which suggests as far ahead as

1972 that there will be 11,000 heroin addicts in Great Britain. However, anyone familiar with the quality of work of the Vera Institute—as I am sure the Minister must be—and its close association with our drug problem would be imprudent to dismiss this prognosis entirely as nonsense. As I will show, there may be reason to think that the Vera Institute's forecast for the immediate future could be, if anything, an underestimate. As well as this, some of us have talked to the police and others who are involved and have formed our own estimates of the problem generally. We can no longer doubt that we face a formidable situation.
Certainly a sharp deterioration has taken place even since the Report of the Inter-departmental Committee under the late Lord Brain in July, 1965. Those who speak of an epidemic may be accused of exaggeration, but they may not be wide of the mark. I am not unconscious of the Government's difficulties in meeting some of the problems and I am not going to under-rate them.
The long illness and widely lamented death of Lord Brain, who was to have been Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence—the body which he recommended—has meant that this Committee has only just been able to start its work. Some of his other proposals confront the medical profession with a new and difficult situation. The Minister of Health has not found it difficult to resolve them, but the whole of our law enforcement machinery faces a new and unfamiliar situation. Nevertheless, and making every allowance, I do not believe that the Government have measured up to the situation adequately. This is not a political opinion but a view which is widely held by those who have been already at grips with this problem.
There has been inexcusable tardiness, and it has not altogether been disguised by the flurry of activity which many of us have noted during the weekend, with speeches, statements and so on. I am anxious, for my part, to avoid recriminations, for we should be concerned with the future. If we are to get out of this mess and get on terms with the problem, we must note past mistakes and face up to certain weaknesses. I mention four such weaknesses. The first is the lack of information and what appears to have


been the lack of a proper system for getting it. The second is the conflict of opinion about how much or how little it is wise to say about this menace—which has left public opinion up to now largely without authoritative guidance from the quarter from which it should have come. The third is the fact that there has been a failure to appreciate the serious part which clubs and resorts for young people have played in many cities, not just in London, and a failure to take the right steps on this score quickly enough. The fourth is the fact that we have not yet got one Minister who is clearly in charge of the whole sphere, which strikes me as a marked weakness, which I will deal with straight away.
The Minister has resisted pleas from myself and the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) for a co-ordinating Minister to co-ordinate the work of the principal Ministeries concerned, the Home Office, Ministry of Health and the Department of Education and Science. I accept that all three must be involved, but it is imperative that one of these Ministers should assume prime responsibility for the whole matter. As the senior and principally concerned, it should be the Home Secretary. I am very glad to see him here. I nope that his presence may mark a fresh approach on the question of Ministerial responsibility.
There is perhaps a fifth and more general weakness which I wish to stress. There has been a damaging tendency, which was reflected in the interdepartmental report, to underrate the importance of the part played in this matter by so-called "soft" drugs—the barbiturates and amphetamines—and, in a different category, cannabis, or marijuana, to which we have to add the form of hallusinogens, LSD25.
Beyond question, the misuse of amphetamine in the first group, and to some extent cannabis in the second, is rife, and it cannot be dissociated from the smaller but far more serious problem of addiction to narcotics. We have to face the fact that the Act of 1964 which was designed to make unauthorised possession of these drugs an offence—cannabis and LSD have since been added to the Schedule—notwithstanding 2,000

prosecutions, has not proved adequate. There is a particular reason for this to which I shall come. When we consider the facts—and we have some facts here—this is hardly surprising.
In the first six months of 1966, not fewer than 10 million National Health Service prescriptions for barbiturate-type drugs and other hypnotics were issued. These are called depressants. If they are abused they are both dangerous and addictive but otherwise they are not the principal cause of social trouble among young people. Amphetamine-type drugs, on the other hand, the "pep" pills, form the bulk of the illicit traffic. Although they are not physically addictive, they can be habit-forming and gross misuse of them can seriously damage mental health. They are perscribed on a smaller scale. I think there were about 3 million prescriptions for them in the last year.
To complete this corner of the picture, we have the third kind of drug, of which Drinamyl, the best known—the "Purple Heart"—has a two-way action. This includes amphetamine and barbiturate and might be said to depress fears on the one hand and to elevate hopes on the other. Thus it has become a most valued and sought-after form of illicit booty. There is reason to think that in addition to the supply lawfully produced by Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, increasing quantities of Drinamyl are being copied—which is not difficult—and made elsewhere.
The social implications of a nation lawfully absorbing this quantity of depressants, stimulants and tranquillisers is outside my scope tonight. I am concerned only with their illicit use. This, I think the Minister will agree, is now on a scale which causes widespread concern. I cannot guess the figure; I only hope that it is below the American figure. Ten billion—10,000 million in their language—capsules and tablets were traded in America last year, and it is believed that more than half of these found their way into the hands of drug abusers through illegal channels.
In this country there are four sources of illicit supplies. First there are drugs smuggled out of factories by employees. I know that the inspectorate are doing what they can, but I question whether even now if really adequate security will be achieved without stronger penalties.


The second source is raids on factories, warehouses, chemists' shops and the interception of supplies. Beyond doubt this is a major factor by which very large quantities are being stolen in bulk. The third source is by theft and forgery of National Health prescription forms, and the fourth cause—which I think is diminishing—is over-subscribing and repeaters by overworked doctors. I know that there has been some tightening up here, but I also know, and so does the Minister, that there are some doctors who are writing "blank cheques" in this respect.
In all these fields, it is imperative to apply stricter vigilance and sharper penalties. We would be very stupid to underrate the social dangers arising from misuse of these drugs. I add a word about cannabis or marijuana. I cannot say that it has not medical uses—there may be medical opinion which would contradict me, but I think those uses are very limited—and supplies of this drug are almost certainly obtained through illicit sources, principally smuggling. I shall not argue about its properties, which seem very hard to defend. I hope that the Minister does not take the tolerant view of cannabis which is expressed by an authoritative minority, nor did those with whom I discussed it in America. Both the amphetamine type drugs and cannabis can induce a state of excitement and recklessness or euphoria in which the user may be more easily persuaded to try something stronger and deadlier. That is not fancy; it is fact.
In America between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of those addicted to heroin, when questioned on the subject, admitted that their associations began with cannabis or marijuana. I think Dr. P. A. L. Chappell, who has worked on the problem, has said that 70 out of 80 young addicts first used marijuana. I do not make much of this, but there is the argument that if we outlaw this drug we stimulate an appetite for it and for illicit trafficking and experiment. That can be said of many drugs, but it is not a counsel which appeals to me. It certainly does not follow that the right course is to countenance it.
Although admittedly not addictive, marijuana used only once or twice experimentally by the young is a thoroughly dangerous substance. I hope that the

Government will accept that and propagate it, because it is high time that an authoritative voice was heard among the conflict of opinion and public argument about this drug.
Before leaving the subject of amphetamine drugs and cannabis, I have two other things to say. I have been at pains to find from the police how far these drugs can be linked with crime and violent crime. There is no doubt that some young criminals, usually amateurs, before undertaking a raid calling for resource and risk, will use a stimulant drug. When weapons are carried a mood of recklessness is thus induced which may have very grim consequences. In the autumn I asked six senior policemen in different parts of the country whether they thought that the misuse of amphetamines had a bearing on violent crime. Five unhesitatingly said, "Yes". The sixth was not sure. I asked the same question in the United States of four police chiefs. All four unhesitatingly said, "Yes".
For the same reason, the House will accept that misuse of these drugs has a serious bearing on road safety. It is well known that an admixture of alcohol to these drugs can have damaging consequences. We are about to measure alcohol in terms of road safety. Neither here nor in America is there any known way of quantitatively assessing the amount of barbiturate or amphetamine which a person may have inside him. This seems to me to be one more reason, since it cannot be added to any road safety Measure, for taking this illicit traffic very seriously inded.
Of L.S.D. I would only say that it is not very difficult to manufacture. It is, perhaps, the best illustration of a drug which I do not believe the Government will be able to defeat entirely by inforcement. I am sure that there will also have to be education. I am aware of the dilemma which confronts Ministers here. One half of the dilemma was put at the Conference of the National Union of Teachers—not unreasonably—where it was said:
The sensational publicity given to drug taking by young people has not only created a false impression of the extent of this problem but has tended to intensify it.
I do not dismiss that as negligible.
The pros and cons of education in schools must be weighed, but, after discussing this point here and in the United States, I am left in no doubt that we must plump for more education. I think that the young are entitled to know the grievous physical consequences of misuse, nearly always begun in ignorance. I fear that our present approach is getting us the worst of both worlds. It is stimulating an appetite for experiment and it is not explaining to young people the consequences that such experiments can lead them into. If it is right to instruct on the subject of sex—and some will argue about that—it seems to me imperative to instruct on the subject of drugs.
Beyond any doubt, certain of the resorts for young people which have sprung up like mushrooms in recent years are prime sources of infection. This is not merely a London problem. In Brighton there are 20 to 30 such clubs. I have seen some of them. All cities and big towns now have them. Most hon. Members will be familiar—or perhaps I should say will know of—at least one in their constituency.
Here I must take the Government to task. It is now at least six months since the Lord Chief Justice, despairing of action by anyone else, drafted some proposals of his own. We are now to hear more about them. I am aware that I must not trespass on the rules of order here. I agree that the Home Secretary has said from time to time that the Lord Chief Justice will receive ail assistance. I am not going to enter into the nuts and bolts of it. The House must be aware that a Measure to regulate these establishments is something which the police and others have been calling for urgently for more than two years. They still have not got it. I find that very difficult to defend.
I would now add only one postscript without trespassing on the rules of order. If we are to license and register clubs, as the Lord Chief Justice does not propose at the moment, we must also register proprietors. Benches must be frankly advised that men with criminal convictions should not be granted licences.
As things are, the enforcement of the 1964 Act, which I have admitted to be a partial failure in these places, has become

impossible for the police. They raid club premises licensed for about 60 people in which they find about 200. Before the police, even if they are policewomen wearing suitable disguise, go through the door all the pills are on the floor. Therefore, I regard the Lord Chief Justice's proposals as really urgent. I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of this.
With apologies for detaining the House, I turn finally to the smaller and infinitely more serious field of narcotics addiction. Here we have more figures. I am not sure that this means that we have a reliable guide on the extent of the problem. We are familiar by now with official returns which show that addicts to dangerous drugs increased from 753 in 1964 to 927 in 1965, a rise of 25 per cent. Of these, 521 used heroin, a rise of 52 per cent. in a year. In that period, the number of addicts under 20—this is something which we must note very seriously—rose from 40 to 145. The Home Secretary told us in his speech at the weekend that the number of addicts—I think I am quoting him correctly—in the first nine months of 1966 was 1,036. It would not surprise me if the total of addicts for 1966 was in the region of 1,300, half of them, or perhaps a little more, on heroin.
These, it must be stressed, are known addicts. Some authorities will assert that the real figure may be three or four times as high. Without accepting that, because I am most anxious to be cautious here, let me simply double the figure. That would give us a total of 2,600 addicts. I may be wide of the mark, but I do not think I am all that wide. That means possibly 1,300 or 1,400 on heroin. We must note that the Vera Institute figures, to which I referred earlier, mentioned 1,202 on heroin in Great Britain in 1967. That is why I say that the Vera Institute figures in the years immediately ahead could conceivably be an underestimate.
Even more ominous, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, 77 persons in 1965 drew supplies from unknown sources. That figure will certainly be higher now. I regard this as a new and very serious development. Lord Brain could say in July, 1965, in his Inter-departmental Report:
we are satisfied from our enquiries of the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and our


witnesses that there is at present no evidence of any significant traffic, organised or otherwise in dangerous drugs that have been stolen or smuggled into this country.
For reasons which the Minister will know, but which I think should be explained to the House, there are certain factors at work which will almost certainly increase this dark figure. Lord Brain reported also:
From the evidence before us we have been led to the conclusion that the major source of supply has been the activity of a very few doctors who have prescribed excessively for addicts.
I judge—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with this point—that a number of doctors who were previously treating addicts have ceased to do so. There is a marked tendency for doctors to withdraw from this field. That compels certain addicts—I will not say many, but some—to seek elsewhere. There are unfortunately certain sources in this country which are, illicitly, most willing to meet that demand. Discounting all the wilder rumours about the activities of Mafia, and so on, these sources can be described only as criminal.
It therefore appears to me that the Minister of Health here is confronted with a very urgent situation. He must provide quickly from National Health Service sources institutional means of replacing supplies for which some general practitioners have hitherto been the major source before filling that gap becomes a major racket. That is a very grave situation.
In fairness, many in the United States referred to our system to me most enviously. It seemed to them that supplies were limited to doctors, that addicts went mainly to doctors, and that doctors were able to contain the problem by regular prescription. I no longer feel quite sure that this relatively tranquil state of affairs prevails. We are in a very difficult transitional period. There has been a change since Lord Brain reported 18 months ago, and not surprisingly. He advocated four important steps, among others—first, addicts to dangerous drugs to be notified to a central authority; secondly, special treatment centres, especially in London; thirdly, the prescribing of heroin and cocaine limited to doctors on the staff of those institutions; and, fourthly, dis

ciplinary steps against doctors who prescribed to addicts.
It is only to be expected that some doctors who were prescribing regularly should have acted in anticipation of those findings being implemented. But the Government have not yet implemented them, 18 months later. They have not supplied the treatment centres recommended, though some others have acted independently.
In my view—and it is not only my view—a very serious gap now exists and into that gap an element, certainly illicit, certainly non-medical, possibly criminal, has begun to enter. This is perhaps the most serious of all developments on narcotics since Lord Brain reported. I warn the Minister that I think that ground we lose here will be very hard to regain.
Lord Brain at that time recommended one other thing. He thought that there should be powers for the compulsory detention of addicts at these centres. I appreciate that this raises a very big question on which Lord Brain subsequently had second thoughts. I can follow the dilemma of the Government sympathetically. If they introduce such powers, some who ought to be treated at such centres will not come forward. I see that clearly enough. If they do not, what is accepted as being a protracted and painful course of treatment may be less effective.
I looked into this matter during a hurried visit to America and I am persuaded that, on balance, powers to detain—I will not say are absolutely essential, because I am not a professional—are very important. I shall need a lot of convincing that we do not need to have them. The American approach is that addiction is not a crime but a form of sickness. The approach, therefore, is non-punitive. That must be right. I am sure that it is right. It is essential and it should be stressed, but that does not remove the need for confinement.
Some hon. Members will know well enough that it is very difficult permanently to cure a narcotics addict. It demands not just skill but infinite patience. To detoxify with methadone and other drugs to remove physical dependence is not difficult. To remove psychological dependence is quite different. I can only say that at Corona, which is one


of the first and largest institutions of its kind in South California, it has been found necessary to keep addicts for a minimum period of six months and for an average period of 15 months, and then there is after-care for three years. During the first of these three years—and we know what is involved in this—all must attend the clinic regularly for nalline tests. If there is a relapse or a failure to report, the patient must return to Corona. Relapses are frequent and have to be treated not punitively but with infinite patience.
This is a world of repeated failure, quite outside any other world in the sphere of penology with which we have to deal. An account in The Times of experiences at Birmingham makes this clear. Dr. John Owens, the head of the drug addiction unit at All Saints Hospital, is on record as saying:
It is difficult to be precise, but at the present time I believe that 90 to 95 per cent. of the addicts being cured in this country go back to drugs.
That illustrates the problem. There is a big difference between keeping a small number of addicts "ticking over" by doctors' prescriptions and an attempt such as we are about to make, I hope, to cure a larger number at in-patient institutions and out-patient centres. I accept that we must keep this matter in perspective. In California alone there are upwards of 20,000 addicts. In Britain at the moment we have no more than 2,000. None the less, even for that number the administrative machine will be taking on a load to reckon with.
I also accept that the right hon. Gentleman will not find it easy to reach a complete understanding with the medical profession. I know the difficulties well enough. Naturally, the medical profession does not relish the limitations of its inherent rights to prescribe as it sees fit. Nor will the profession concur readily to machinery proposed by Lord Brain for disciplining its members. I want to say nothing here to make the Minister's task more difficult, but, in my view, it would be best, based on experience elsewhere, if the medical profession could be persuaded to assume principal responsibility for disciplining its members. Enforcement is for the Government. Checks with chemists and other sources will trace what is to become illicit prescribing. In

the United States the information is then passed to the medical profession on a regional basis, and it is invited to deal with offenders. I think that is wise.
I have already taken more of the time of die House than I intended, and I do not wish to conclude with a grisly or fanciful portrait of what might lie before us. What I have seen of this problem in other countries has led me to think that no nation can try too hard or can go to too much trouble to prevent this sort of epidemic from getting out of hand or into crime. Here and in America we know terribly little about it. We need a great deal more research in depth, and that we must have. Some of the drugs that I have spoken of tonight are only the inventions of the last decade and we can be quite sure that they will not be the last. Medical science has a lot more in store for us and we must get our administration in shape to meet the challenge. I suggest that aggressive research is essential, and I hope that the Minister will say something about that tonight.
The main impression left on my mind, looking at this in America, was not the human misery engendered by this problem. That goes without saying. It was the enormous demand on skill, care and expertise that addiction, even on a small scale, will make. Drug addiction is prodigal of skilled human resources—resources which we have not got in this country in superabundance. We must do all we can administratively and in other ways to reduce that demand. I do not say that we can beat this thing. That would be a loose and misleading expression. H. L. Mencken has called it "intrinsically and eternally insoluble". But at least perhaps we can contain it, if we properly use the help of social workers, teachers, police, doctors, church and other services. But it will call for a main effort. It will call for a bigger and more costly effort than many now realise. It will call for more clearly-defined Ministerial responsibility, for a sharper sense of urgency and for much clearer directions from the Government than any that we have yet had.

7.57 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): The public is justifiably concerned about the growing misuse of dangerous drugs, and the Government welcome this opportunity for a discussion


of the problems and of our policy for tackling them. We have listened to a thoughtful and reasoned speech from the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) who has, I know, a special interest in this subject and who, as the House will know, has been appointed a member of the new Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence.
It may be helpful if I stress at the outset that when I refer to dangerous drugs I am doing so in the statutory context, meaning drugs such as morphine, cocaine and heroin. This carries no implication that other drugs addictive to a greater or lesser degree such as the amphetamines and barbiturates, are free from danger for those who habitually take them. Indeed, I would not dissent from much that the right hon. Gentleman said on this subject. I should mention that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will be dealing in greater detail with the problems of control of amphetamines and the like, in winding up the debate.
Although there are no reliable figures of the total incidence in this country of the addiction to dangerous drugs, it appears to be small, but recent trends have been disturbing particularly in relation to the number of young addicts. In 1959 the total number of dangerous drug addicts known to the Home Office was 454. In 1965 the total had risen to 927. In 1959 there were no known addicts under the age of 20. In 1964 there were 40, and in the following year 145, all but 11 being addicted to heroin or cocaine.
The increase in addiction is a matter for deep concern but, as the right hon. Gentleman fairly said, it is a problem which we must try to keep in the right perspective. The figures are small compared with those in some other countries. For example, there is an estimated total of more than 3,000 addicts in Canada, with a population one-quarter of ours, and in the United States there are between 40,000 and 60,000 in New York City alone. Nevertheless, the marked increase in addiction, especially among the young, has properly given rise to serious public concern.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with arrangements for the control of dangerous drugs and with related matters which may arise in the

debate. I propose to confine myself to outlining the action taken or proposed by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Drug Addiction. This Committee was reconvened in 1964 to consider whether its earlier advice in relation to the prescribing of dangerous drugs needed revision. As hon. Members know, the late Lord Brain, of whose recent death we all learned with so much regret, was the chairman not only of the Inter-Departmental Committee but also of the new Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. Lord Brain enjoyed an international reputation as one of the most distinguished neurologists this country has produced, and his death is a serious loss to medicine. It is appropriate in this debate that I should acknowledge the debt we owe to Lord Brain for his great interest and careful examination of the problem of drug addiction and for his guidance [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The House will know that the findings of the Brain Committee were, in brief, that there had been a disturbing rise in the incidence of addiction to heroin and cocaine and that the main source of supply was over-prescribing of these drugs by a small number of doctors who were nevertheless acting within the law. The Government have accepted this finding. The Committee recommended measures designed, on the one hand, to prevent over-prescribing of heroin to addicts and, on the other, to avoid such restriction of lawful supplies of drugs to addicts as would encourage the introduction of a new illicit market in drugs. To strike this kind of balance is, perhaps, the crux of the problem. Clearly, we cannot allow the spread of addiction to go unchecked, but the steps we take must not encourage the establishment of a black market in heroin which would tend not only to accelerate the increase in addiction but to spread criminal activities.
Perhaps I can just remind the House of the major recommendations of the Committee. First, there should be a system of compulsory notification of persons addicted to dangerous drugs. Second, only doctors at recognised treatment centres should be allowed to prescribe or supply certain drugs to addicts. These drugs—initially heroin and cocaine


—were termed restricted drugs. I should make clear, however, that it was the Committee's view, and it remains the Government's view, that all doctors should remain free to use restricted drugs when they judge it necessary for the treatment of organic disease.
The Committee's third recommendation was that hospital treatment facilites should be available for all addicts to dangerous drugs, not only those addicts who are willing to accept withdrawal treatment but those who are not for the time being willing who nevertheless need drugs and so require medical supervision. Fourth, an advisory committee should be set up to keep under review the misuse of narcotic and other drugs. Fifth, the need for more research. Sixth, the staff of treatment centres should have a new statutory power to detain patients during crises in which they wished to break off treatment.
The Government recognised at once the need for speedy decisions and urgent action to implement these recommendations, but we recognised also that drug addiction poses complex problems and that it is most important that our action should be carefully prepared and soundly based. It would have been all too easy to act hastily and make matters worse. These measures recommended by the Committee are the special concern of doctors, and it was essential to consult the medical profession fully in order that its professional experience should be brought to bear in devising a scheme of action and that doctors should co-operate willingly in its execution. I am pleased to say that this has been achieved, although it has taken rather longer than we expected.
The time spent in this preparatory work has, in the Government's view, been well spent, and I make no apology to the House for not acting sooner. I reject the charge of inexcusable tardiness levelled against us by the right hon. Gentleman. I assure him that the joint responsibility for these matters between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself has not in any way contributed to any delay in implementing the Committee's recommendations.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that certain of the freely prescribing

doctors had anticipated action by the Government and had stopped prescribing for addicts. I am glad to tell him that my inquiries indicate that the problem, although it is not non-existent, was somewhat exaggerated by him. We believe that only one or two have either given up altogether or restricted the numbers treated and that most of those addicts who have, so to speak, been dropped by their normal practitioner have been accepted by other general practitioners. There are some of whom we have lost trace, I admit.
The House will know that the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence was appointed last year. The first meeting took place earlier this month. It had, of course, been delayed on account of the unfortunate illness of the late Lord Brain. We attach the greatest importance to the work of this Committee, the chairmanship of which has recently been accepted, I am glad to tell the House, by Sir Edward Wayne. The Committee will keep under review the effectiveness of the measures being taken to check the misuse of narcotic drugs and the problems arising from the misuse of these and other drugs.
The problems of addiction are complex. The reasons why addiction spreads are not fully understood. It is not merely a matter of availability of supplies. For this reason, one or more units for research into the problems of drug dependence are needed. I am pleased to inform the House that later this year I shall set up a unit at the Institute of Psychiatry, the Maudsley Hospital, London. The broad aims of the unit will be to consider, first, the social causes of spread of addiction and, second, the clinical aspects of treatment. The unit will, of course, be in close touch with the hospital treatment centres.
The measures which I have outlined are aimed fairly broadly at the problems of addiction. I turn now to measures to tackle the more specific and immediate problem of over-prescribing of heroin and cocaine to addicts. The proposals for compulsory notification and for the limitation of doctors' authority to prescribe or supply restricted drugs require legislation to amend the Dangerous Drugs Act. Both the principle of this legislation and a more detailed scheme were discussed with the medical profession, which has signified its support, and as my right hon.


Friend the Home Secretary announced in a speech on Saturday, the Government have now decided that a short Bill embodying these measures will be introduced during the current Session. The development of hospital treatment facilities does not require legislation. Although it has been pressed forward, considerable time and thought have been necessary. I stall now give the House a brief account of the position.
The Committee envisaged that treatment under the National Health Service would he provided in psychiatric hospitals or in psychiatric departments of general hospitals and that it would take two main forms: first, in-patient treatment for those willing to accept withdrawal of the drug, followed by a longer period of rehabilitation at the hospital or elsewhere; second, out-patient treatment and supervision of addicts who are unwilling for the time being to accept withdrawal treatment.
Treatment of the first kind is fairly widely available in hospitals, but hitherto there has been a very small demand for it from heroin addicts, partly because there have been few such addicts, and partly because fewer still have desired hospital treatment. Treatment of the second kind, supervision on an out-patient basis, represents a new rôle for the hospital service. That new rôle requires the hospital to strike a delicate balance—to supply heroin addicts with drugs that they need, in the opinion of the hospital doctor, but with no more than they need.
I shall not delay the House by going into all the questions that arise—methods of assessment of dosage and supply of drugs, and the need for special precautions against over-prescribing, including a system of identification linked with the proposed new central records. The point is that these questions require attention from doctors with special experience in the treatment of addiction; they could not be solved by Government edict.
Three conferences were therefore organised to consider problems of this kind, and also to take a fresh look at the organisation of hospital in-patient and rehabilitation services for addicts. I am most grateful for the service of those doctors, and propose shortly to issue guidance to hospital authorities on the facilities required for the treatment,

supervision, and rehabilitation of persons addicted to heroin and cocaine. Final details are currently being discussed with representatives of the medical profession and of hospital authorities, but the House may like to know the kind of arrangements proposed.
Addiction is a socially infectious condition, and it is important to avoid any large concentration of addicts at treatment centres. On the other hand, if treatment is too dispersed, the medical and nursing staff will not have the opportunity to specialise and there will be insufficient patients to treat as a group, which is also desirable. We therefore propose that in-patient facilities at a hospital should cater for a small group of heroin addicts, probably not exceeding 12. In the London area, where there is a concentration of addicts, the expectation is that the main in-patient rôle will be shared among the psychiatric hospitals.
Out-patient supervision will also be spread, among psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric departments of general hospitals, so that large numbers of addicts do not attend together. There will be links between these out-patient clinics and in-patient services, where both are not provided at the same hospital, so that an addict who attends as an out-patient can be offered withdrawal treatment as soon as he is ready to accept it. Out-patient supervision will involve, among other things, a decision by a psychiatrist whether to supply an addict with drugs, or substitute drugs, and an assessment of dosage. I understand that where possible dosage will be determined by a short period of in-patient observation which the addict will be asked to accept. Continued treatment will not, however, be conditional on acceptance. If the psychiatrist decides that the addict should receive a regular supply of drugs, it is likely that they will be issued by hospital pharmarcies or retail chemists, and there will be special precautions against the misuse of prescriptions.
Because addiction to heroin and cocaine is largely concentrated in London, I have asked the London hospital authorities to take immediate action to deal with existing and potential demand for treatment on the lines suggested by the conferences. I expect that out-patient treatment will be mainly provided by the


psychiatric departments of the London teaching hospitals.
I now return to the in-patient rôle of the treatment centres, and to the recommendation of the Brain Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—

Mr. Deedes: What about the financing of the proposals? Will there be extra provision for hospitals, or will they be expected to finance them out of their current expenditure?

Mr. Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman knows the method of financing the National Health Service. All hospital authorities have extra money every year for developments. It has never been the practice to give them funds earmarked for a particular purpose. I do not consider that the cost of the treatment centres will be very large in relation to the total cost of the hospital provision.
I was about to refer to the recommendations of the Brain Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, for a new, limited power to detain patients who wish to break off treatment entered into voluntarily. I accept the Committee's view that compulsory treatment meets with little success, and I have carefully considered the limited proposal which it made. I must tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that it poses a practical difficulty, as well as the serious considerations that attach to any restriction of the liberty of the subject.
The practical difficulty is that although it is unfortunately true that addicts often break off treatment against the advice of their doctor there is no convenient way of identifying those occasions to which a limited power of compulsion could easily be attached. I am advised that it is common for addicts to complete withdrawal treatment successfully and then, at some stage during the rehabilitation period which succeeds withdrawal treatment to discharge themselves from hospital. If compulsion were to be applied to that situation, it would have to apply to the rehabilitation period and would seem to require a long-term power of detention. The Government's view is, therefore, that the case for the limited power of detention recommended by the Committee—about which Lord Brain had second thoughts, as the right hon. Gentle

man reminded us—has not been fully established, and that it would be right for us to proceed, at any rate initially, without it.
I should like to say a little more about the problem of the rehabilitation of addicts. The Brain Committee said, and this is generally recognised, that withdrawal is only the first stage of treatment. The problem is to prevent subsequent relapse, and that can be prevented to some extent by improving facilities for long-term rehabilitation. But once again the problems must not be over simplified. There is no ready-made system of rehabilitation which guarantees or even promises a high rate of success. To ask the Government to provide an effective system of rehabilitation is, in effect, to ask us to produce a cure for drug addiction—something that, unfortunately, medical science has not yet succeeded in doing.
I am anxious to build on existing services and try new methods. One possibility is the accommodation of addicts in hostels, where they can receive psychiatric supervision and support while in regular employment. In arrangements of that kind I feel sure that there is scope for voluntary bodies, and I certainly welcome their co-operation.
The object of these measures—the legislation and the new rôle for the hospital service—is to check the spread of addiction, but not to crush the addict. The addict is, as I am sure the House realises, a sick person deserving of compassion; addiction is a disease. That is and will remain the attitude of the hospital service, and persons who are addicted to heroin—or for that matter to other drugs—will find in the hospital to which they are referred doctors and nurses whose professional job it is to understand their problems. Addicts will not be compelled to undertake withdrawal against their will; but they will be given every opportunity to do so and we hope that more of them will be so persuaded.
Finally, I should try to sum up what the Government hopes to achieve by these various measures. I must first say frankly to the House that we do not expect to abolish drug addiction. The causes of this social phenomenon are insufficiently known; the extent to which it can be dealt with by legislation is as


yet uncertain; and we cannot ignore the fact that other countries have failed to solve these problems. We believe that the measures which I have outlined are the right ones at the present time to check the spread of addiction, and we fervently hope that they will succeed. But the Government have no monopoly of action in this field and there is scope for voluntary bodies to help both in the prevention of drug addiction and in the rehabilitation of addicts.
The Government's measures will be carefully watched by many people—for example, by the new Advisory Committee, by research units, doctors and others interested in addiction, and not least by the House. The problems of addiction are complex and changing, and it would be a mistake to think that a once-for-all solution is at hand. If experience shows that further steps or new methods are required, we shall be very ready to introduce them.

8.20 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I shall try to be very brief, because this is an extremely important matter on which I am sure many hon. Members wish to speak. Also, while I am anxious to put forward a professional point of view—incidentally, it is my own professional point of view—I nevertheless recognise that the non-professional point of view is every bit as important. However, the professional point of view is a slightly different one, and so it may be helpful to hon. Members to hear it.
I found myself in substantial agreement with almost everything that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, save that I would have laid a slightly different emphasis in different places. I depart from him to some extent in his criticism of the Government for tardiness. Perhaps there has been some tardiness, but I think it would be only right and fair for hon. Members to say that they can understand it. It must have been, and I am sure still is, an extremely difficult decision to make. When I first studied the proposals of the Brain Committee and the other recommendations that were put forward, I should not have liked to have had to make up my mind about them very quickly. I was conscious, as I think we all are, that certain of these decisions could rapidly take us down a route from which there

might be no return. In other words, it was very important that nothing irreversible should be done without all possible thought.
In my brief remarks I want to leave alone the question of the general dependency on drugs of patients in legitimate circumstances in society at the time when there is considerable stress in life generally. I agree that this is a big problem, and it is possibly a problem for the House to consider at some stage, but it is a totally different problem from that of addiction.
With respect to the arguments by the right hon. Member for Ashford I would leave, too, the question of addiction to the amphetamines, the barbiturates and marijuana. I am not what he called "part of a tolerant intellectual minority" in doing that—I regard this, too, as an extremely important and serious problem—but I would emphasise that it is a totally different problem. Although the basic causes may have the same roots, it is quite a different problem from that of addiction to such things as heroin.

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, but would the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, in his view, this is partly a medical problem as well as a social and a law and order problem?

Dr. Winstanley: I agree with that entirely. They are both medical problems and they are both social problems but what I want to make clear is that the kind of remedies that we may have to introduce to deal with addiction to drugs like heroin are not necessarily the right kind of remedies to introduce in a different field.
With that proviso, I would concentrate on what I regard as something extremely grave and, indeed, desperately worrying. There is no doubt that this country has some grounds for satisfaction and can congratulate itself on the low level of addiction to drugs of this kind in the past. At the same time, we should be very unwise to blind ourselves to the fact that the situation has changed, and once it changes at all, that change can accelerate at a terrifying rate. I think that it could be possible for us to make mistakes here, and that if we took certain steps we might start trends in motion which we might never be able to reverse.
There is something of a dilemma here. Whatever choice we make—the Government have to make a choice; indeed, they have already started making the choice—will not be altogether satisfactory, and certainly cannot be satisfactory for all parties. In a sense, what we have to do is either to tell certain doctors that they have the right virtually to destroy certain people—that is what giving drugs to an addict means—or to introduce types of punitive measures, regulations and controls in order to cure certain addicts and, thereby, run the risk of escalating the whole problem on the black market.
The House has to understand that once drugs of this kind come into short supply the addict will leave no stone unturned to find them, and that the usual method of his finding them and making sure that he can get them is for him to create further addicts. This is undoubtedly what has happened in the United States of America. Where there has been a shortage and a black market, the addict has found that in order to obtain finance for his own increasing supplies—let us remember that the amount required increases and increases extremely rapidly—he has to create further addicts whom he can supply, so that he can get the supplies that he himself needs.
I was very glad to hear—I was not surprised—the Minister of Health say that this is a problem of which the Government are fully seized. I expected them to understand this. But I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I support almost everything he said. I am glad that the Government have taken what I regard as a very thoughtful view of an extremely difficult problem.
It may be attractive to think of introducing measures whereby one can suddenly control the whole problem, introducing compulsory treatment arrangements and setting up special clinics where one can put an addict under some kind of certification and keep him excluded from the community. Introducing all sorts of controls on the import of drugs and the traffic in drugs generally through what are at present legitimate channels may be attractive. It might be possible to stamp out addiction by an extremely vigorous attack of this

kind, although I very much doubt it. But, if it failed, the results would be utterly devastating.
That is why I think the Government are right to take the course which they are adopting. But I think it is extremely important to consider the timing of all the operations that have been announced. It is extremely important that the Government should think all the time—if I used the word "permissive" in this context it might be misleading—about the way in which the various regulations are operating. If it should turn out that the new centres are the sort of places to which the addicts would not go, that somehow or other addicts were escaping or finding the arrangements unacceptable, it would be a matter of extreme urgency that the Government should take other steps. Otherwise they may be hoist with the danger to which I referred—that of the addict having to create further addicts, and thus the problem escalating. A great deal of thought will have to be given to the various measures, and that undoubtedly will be done. I am sure that they are the sort of measures that we all welcome, but I would like to see some further steps taken.
I am glad that the Home Secretary recently paid tribute to the steps which have been taken in Manchester for the inspection of certain clubs and other places. This is important. It is extremely important that every possible attempt should be made to identify the kind of people liable to become drug addicts at an early stage so that they can rapidly be brought under supervision. I am sure that the Government will be considering these points and I hope that they will take steps on them as they arise.
But I would emphasise particularly the importance of seeing to it that the various measures are properly phased. It will be catastrophic if the regulations controlling the prescribing of drugs to addicts precede those making avaliable alternative sources.
The right hon. Member for Ashford, in an intervention, put to the Minister a point regarding the financing of these centres. I accept from the Minister that money awarded to hospitals is not carefully earmarked for individual purposes, and also his view that these new centres and the new provisions may not be particularly expensive. But it will not have


escaped the right hon. Gentleman that hospitals from time to time find it difficult to do certain things because of shortage of money.
It is essential that a programme of this kind should not be held up by lack of money. There will be arguments within regional hospital boards and hospital management committees about priorities and the amount to be spent on various services. But this particular matter is too grave to be prejudiced in any way by shortage of money. It is something upon which the country cannot afford not to spend every penny that proves to be necessary in order to implement these various measures.
I welcome the Government's proposals. I hope that they will put them forward speedily. I hope at the same time that they will watch them carefully to see that they are operating with humanity, in view of the various considerations I have mentioned. This is not merely because of consideration for the drug addicts, although they should be considered, for addiction is an illness which must be accepted as such. It is because, if the regulations are not operated with humanity, they will fail—and if they fail We shall have the same situation which has arisen in the United States and from which there can be no possible return.

8.32 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have been very concerned about this problem and, since the publication of the Brain Report, I have put down about 10 Questions to various Ministers, including the Prime Minister. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I pressed the Prime Minister to nominate one Minister to be responsible for co-ordinating the work on this dreadful and urgent medical and social problem, and I still feel that as long as the responsibility is divided there is the danger that our handling of the problem will be less urgently pressed forward and co-ordinated than it should be.
I do not know whether it will be possible for the major responsibility for this problem to be concentrated ultimately in the hands of one Minister, but it is certainly something that we should

think about. I agreed with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Ashford said, but at the risk of spoiling the non-party approach to the problem, perhaps I should say that I do not think that it became him very well to chide the present Government for delay in dealing with this problem.
When I raised this subject in an Adjournment debate last August, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, stated that the figure of known addicts was 454 in 1959 and that this had more than doubled by 1965. During most of that period the party opposite formed the Government. I think that the Opposition were not seized of the seriousness of the problem then, and it may well be that there have been errors through delay on both sides of the House.
It is very useful that we have had the opportunity to look at this problem again and to see where the weaknesses in the present system lie. I welcome very much what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has said, although I have some slight criticisms of his suggestions. It is important to realise that there are certain sources of supply and certainly compulsions which, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said, drive addicts to increase the number of addicts in order to get the money with which to buy the supplies they themselves need. By the time addicts get on the Home Office list, they are so addicted that they cannot get the supplies they need illegally and therefore have to go to their doctors to get supplies on the National Health Service. But the Home Office list represents only a minority of those addicted.
I have spoken to a very large number of doctors who treat addicts and also to a large number of addicts themselves. My heart is filled only with compassion for those young people who become addicted in this dreadful way, who start off really for "kicks" and who find that it is something they cannot control. It gets a hold of them and they are driven to the sort of lives we have heard about tonight in order to get the supplies they need.
It has been estimated that every addict must in a year create another three addicts in order to get the supplies that he needs. So there is this rapid expansion in numbers, and what is so alarming to so many of us is the rapid expansion in the number


of young people. As the number increases, the age range of people who become addicted is lowered, and we know that there are children still at school who have been addicted first to amphetamines and have then progressed to the hard d rugs.
This is something which I find so very difficult to contemplate with any kind of equanimity, and I am sure that everyone is very concerned about the problem. We know that illegal supplies are obtained in the kind of premises which young teenagers frequent—and by teen-agers I include young people of 13 years of age. They are far too young to go to these sort of clubs and coffee bars, but they do because parental control is far too lax. Coffee bars, jazz clubs, bowling alleys, and frequently, I am sorry to say, youth clubs, are premises where young people can come into contact with those who have supplies to get rid of.
We have to realise also that, contrary to what the Brain Report said, this is not a problem which is confined to London. It is certainly a very great problem in the Midlands, in my own constituency and in Birmingham particularly. It is true to say without exaggeration that it affects every port area in the country. One finds, too, that there is evidence of drug addiction among young people in country districts, so it is not even an urban problem.
I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to give some attention to this matter and to provide guidance for teachers, because, as the right hon. Member for Ashford said, education is a very important part of dealing with the problem. My right hon. Friend assured me that in the preparation of the new circular dealing with health problems generally, which is being sent to schools, some instruction will be given to head teachers on how to recognise the signs of addiction among children still at school. I have found, in talking to teachers, both in the provinces and in the London area, that they are in favour of this kind of guidance. It is something which most local education authorities have not been prepared to tackle. When they have had evidence of this problem in their own schools, they have pushed it under the carpet, because they felt it was

something too difficult for them to deal with.
This is a problem which we must grasp and tackle. Head teachers have to be given the guidance they need on how to deal with the problem. We have to keep a balanced attitude about the way in which we deal with the problem. We must not be punitive, because young people who become addicted need a great deal of compassion and help. At the same time, we must not be too permissive.
The proposals which my right hon. Friend has made will certainly go a long way towards tackling the problem of how to deal with known addicts. We ought to be prepared to ask doctors to give information when they come across young people or adults who are taking drugs illicitly. This is the sort of information which comes to general practitioners all the time.
The Chief Constable of Mid-Anglia police force recently suggested that doctors ought to be willing to provide this information so that the rescue work could begin. If we do not know the full number of those addicted to drugs, whether to amphetamines or "hard" drugs, then we shall treat only the small number of patients of whom we know and leave the mass of the problem largely untackled. hope that it will be possible to gain the co-operation of the medical profession, particularly those in general practice with experience of this problem, in this work.
My right hon. Friend has said that certain recommendations of the Brain Report are to be implemented—the restrictions on supplies only through hospitals and consultants and doctors with experience of this particularly specialised and difficult kind of medical treatment. In reply to a Question recently, he said that there were nineteen hospitals in the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board area alone which were able to deal with drug addicts. My information is that only three effectively are willing to take addicts into hospital.
I have had reports from social workers in London who have tried to get addicts admitted into hospital when they have begged to be given treatment and yet the hospitals have been unwilling to accept addicts as patients. Dreadful difficulty and anguish have been created when young people have been anxious to


undergo the treatment necessary to get them off this terrible habit and yet the hospitals have been unwilling to take them in. My right hon. Friend has accepted the principle of control of treatment and the proper assessment of need. I was glad that he said that this would be done when patients were willing to undergo in-patient treatment by taking the patient into hospital for a few days to assess his reaction to controlled withdrawal, for this is the only way in which to assess the true needs of the patient.
My right hon. Friend said that he was to set up treatment centres in the teaching hospitals in London. I make the urgent plea that he should not confine this to London. I beg him to give an assurance that centres will be set up in those parts of the country which I have mentioned, and probably many others, where the need is considerable and where we have doctors, consultants and psychiatrists anxious and willing to carry out this work.
I hope that we can reconsider the recommendation of the Brain Report which my right hon. Friend has rejected by saying that the detention of certain addicts so that treatment can be continued is not to be contemplated, at least for the time being. I know that this is a difficult problem affecting the liberty of the subject, but I wonder whether it would be possible to apply Section 26 of the Mental Health Act. Once a patient has embarked on the long difficult and painful process of treatment and withdrawal from addictive drugs, I wonder whether it is not kinder to insist that he continues treatment which is for his own sake and for the sake of those who might be contaminated if he leaves his treatment and starts again on the miserable, depressing and dangerous circle of acquiring drugs illegally and selling them to more people.
When she replied to my Adjournment debate in August, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department gave the assurance that the Government were prepared to look favourably upon a Private Member's Bill, being introduced in another place, to provide stricter control of clubs. I hope that we can be given the assurance that legislation is to be introduced, and early, on the lines of the Manchester Bill, so that all the premises which are frequented by

young people and where, as we know, supplies of drugs are bought and sold will come under the control of the local authority and the police be given the power of entry. This applies to coffee bars and to other premises which are open all night, to bowling alleys and places of this type. A register of known addicts is essential, and I hope that we shall have the co-operation of the medical profession to make this as complete and effective a register as possible.
My right hon. Friend said that the narcotics squad has been increased not only in London but in other cities. I press again that we ought to consider this problem. In London there are nowhere near enough members of the narcotics squad who are willing to work in the field, as it were, among young people in particular. We need to enrol the help and active assistance of social workers in all our large towns and cities, and the employment of police cadets, men and women, to work particularly among young people would be very useful. I hope that we shall take steps to recruit suitable people and to use, much more than we do, the help of voluntary bodies, who are already doing a good deal of work in this voluntary capacity.
The problem of what to do with the young people when the treatment is concluded is very difficult, and I do not think that we shall overcome it without being prepared, as a Government and a nation, to spend rather more money than my right hon. Friend implied in reply to an intervention by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). We must be willing to expand the provisions in the hospitals for treatment and it is essential that when treatment has been concluded—it may be treatment lasting six months, nine months or even longer—instead of thrusting people back into the same environment and milieu from which they came, and in which they learned to be drug addicts, there is some half-way stage between treatment and a return to their old environment.
The provision of hostels will have to be accepted by the Government, even though this may well cost a lot of money. Young people who become encapsulated by drugs as a barrier against the ordinary problems of life will find it very difficult to go back into ordinary jobs straight from treatment and without any half-way


stage. If hostels can be set up under the supervision of voluntary organisations, as with Borstal after-care hostels, a great deal of help can be given. Where possible young people ought to go back into a completely different environment and a different part of the country, but this may be difficult to ensure.
The figures which have been quoted so many times do not reflect the whole extent of this problem. There are an enormous number of young people who are drifting into a very serious part of their lives, in and out of jobs, running the risk of getting into touch with prostitution—this applies both to young men and to young women—sleeping in derelict buildings, spending hours on underground trains and sleeping in public lavatories. We hear fantastic and dreadful stories of the effects of addiction on young people. I hope that we may take it from what my right hon. Friend has said that we are at last starting to tackle this problem.
I do not suppose that we shall have spectacular results or that we shall stamp out the problem of drug addiction. We have to approach the problem from many different aspects. There is the problem of trafficking and of security arrangements at manufacturing chemists, drug stores, and so on. I know that my right hon. Friend is exercised about these aspects. But at least we are making a start. If we can proceed with energy, and if, above all, we can provide the money necessary to take the right steps in giving treatment and protection and care afterwards, we shall save some young people from a premature death and a life of great unhappiness.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I am glad of the opportunity to be able to make a few short points.
I should like to take up the point which the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) made about the lack of treatment centres. She said that there were only three hospitals in the London area dealing with this matter. There is a tremendous lack of treatment centres and of doctors and nurses and others who understand this problem. The Minister painted too rosy a picture of what he will do unless very much more money is

made available. I hope that it is made available so that we can deal effectively with this problem.
On balance, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that there should be limited power to detain drug addicts in treatment centres. This is something which we could leave to the medical profession—to perhaps two doctors and, if necessary, an appeal, rather on the basis of the Mental Health Act. It is dreadful that, after getting over the withdrawal stage, doctors should be deprived of a weapon which is necessary to carry on to the next stage in the treatment of the addict.
We are talking mainly about two drugs—heroin and cocaine—but there are undoubtedly other drugs which are dangerous and habit-forming. Paragraph 39 of the Brain Report states that this particular problem was not within its terms of reference,
… but we feel obliged to say we are disturbed at the large quantity of habit-forming drugs currently in circulation.
From the Appendix, one sees that of the very small number of addicts known since 1964—the figure of 753 which has been bandied around—over one-quarter were not addicts to heroin and cocaine. What is being done to deal with addicts to other drugs like methedrine? We have had no mention of that.
I come to the question of prescribing. One of the difficulties is that many general practitioners have been prescribing, not as we see from the Brain Report, enormously in excess, but slightly in excess. The addict's need has been for six grains and the doctor has prescribed ten. The addict has been able to sell the remainder which has enabled him to buy food. This has contributed to what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said, that the number of addicts was increasing. But if the addict cannot go to his family doctor and get a prescription, we are up against the danger of illegal entry of drugs from overseas. If this starts, it will be immensly difficult to stop.
Motor cars are going abroad in increasing numbers. One hears of young people going on Land Rover trips across Europe to places like India and Persia. It seems to me to be a problem quite beyond the power of the Customs and


Excise to examine cars and people returning to this country and to detect these drugs. Furthermore, I understand that the drugs can be put in such a small packet that they can be sent by registered airmail, which is practically never interfered with. If this happened, the problem could well get very much out of hand.
I am, therefore, rather unhappy about cutting off from the family doctor the power to prescribe, because this might push the problem over the edge and we might rind an illegal organisation—the Mafia has been mentioned—corning into this market. It is largely a question of balance, but I am a little perturbed.
The penalties for drug peddlers cannot be too severe. Another matter which we have not heard about today is the question of penalties for those who incite young people to take drugs. In the Sunday papers, we have seen an example of a so-called "pop" star making records which could well have that effect. I do not know whether there is any offence in the criminal law of inciting others to take drugs—I do not think so. This is something which we should consider seriously. On the other side of the coin, however, if we punish those who incite others to take drugs, let us have more publicity and better education and let us show people the real danger of this habit.

8.57 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: The title of this Adjournment debate is "Drugs". We have debated, I suppose aptly, ad nauseam the question of addiction, and an important question it is. We have debated it in the context of young people. Even though there have been references to the problems of other drugs, to which the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) has just referred, one would think that the problem was new; it is certainly dramatic.
One would think that the problem affected predominantly young people. It does not. The problem of addiction has been with us and on a very big scale, and recognisable on a big scale, since the prescribing habits of doctors in the National Health Service revealed their propensity to prescribe drugs, particularly the barbiturates and the amphetamine series, to very large numbers of

patients, the majority of whom benefited from them, some of whom became dependent upon or habituated to them and a certain number of whom became, strictly speaking, addicted to them.
We had better start by making up our minds what an addict is. The Brain Report defined him, I think hopelessly badly, as
A person who as the result of repeated administration has become dependent upon a drug controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Act and has an overpowering desire for its continuance but who does not require it for the relief of organic disease.
None of the phrases used in this definition has the clarity that would allow it to be entirely acceptable.
The World Health Organisation, by contrast, defined addiction in these terms:
A state of periodic or chronic intoxication"—
note that term; not dependence, as the Brain Committee said—
detrimental to the individual and society
which the Brain Committee forgot about—
produced by the repeated consumption of a drug, natural or synthetic. Its characteristics "—
that is of addiction—
include an overpowering desire or need to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means, a tendency to increase the dose and a psychological and sometimes a physical dependence on the effect of the drug.
That is an infinitely preferable definition of the subject which we are striving so hard to elucidate.
The Minister has described certain solutions which he is accepting on the basis of the Brain Committee's Report. The Brain Committee had very restricted terms of reference. Its inquiry was limited and its recommendations, to say the least, not always acceptable, particularly to members of my profession. To my hon. and charming Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) I would say that her plea to doctors to reveal to some central register or local health authority the state of health of one of their patients would be extremely difficult. I would remind her of the very unhappy experience during the war when, under, I think, Regulation 33B, there was a requirement to notify contacts of venereal disease.
I am rebutting this suggestion for one very good reason. We are a little carried away by the highly charged atmosphere in which drug addiction is discussed. It is tragic, sordid and dramatic, but I doubt whether the problem of addiction among young people justifies the priority which we have given it in this debate—to set up special treatment centres in hospitals—at least in relation to the very much greater need, in terms of numbers to be treated, of for instance adolescent units for disturbed young people. Perhaps if we had had them, the drug problem would have been much smaller.
It is at least questionable whether we do not need more of that kind of provision than of the provision for this, as yet, small problem. Everybody agrees that the Home Office list is hopelessly misleading, yet we keep quoting it. One of the things quoted is that the list is growing larger, but there are many reasons why it should, without there being any increase in the total number of addicts. If there were a pool of 10,000 or 15,000 addicts to various drugs, it is not inconceivable that, as public censoriousness of the problem grew and more treatment facilities became available, more of this pool would go on to the list. That would not necessarily mean that the size of the pool was growing, although some of them might be coming in for treatment.
Nevertheless, all the other information which we have indicates that the problem is extending. When we talk about the Home Office list, why do we not refer, for instance, to the lists of patients distributed to doctors on executive council lists, warning them to expect that patient on their doorstep demanding one of the drugs of addiction—barbiturate or nembutal—or the mixed drugs like amphetamine. There cannot be a doctor in the country who does not receive regular information of this kind indicating the wicked extent of drug dependence and habituation of a horrific kind.
No one has referred to the alarming growth in deaths from barbiturates—

Mr. Deedes: I did.

Dr. Kerr: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if he did. I of course heard him refer to barbiturate addiction.
The growth of deaths from barbiturate addiction is a much greater factor than those from heroin. We must see this whole problem of addiction against the broad background of a growing dependence upon these drugs. I want to refer specifically to two. One has been mentioned again and again, the "Purple Heart", or Drinamyl. I am not allowed to advertise, as a practising doctor, but I hope that I am allowed to do the opposite and to warn any patient who dares to approach me for Drinamyl that he is wasting his time. It is a wicked drug and we should strike it off the list of prescribable drugs. It does nothing which other, later drugs do not do better and more safely. I will welcome the irate letter from the director of Smith, Kline and French tomorrow, disputing everything that I am saying.
This is a bad drug and I cannot condemn it strongly enough, in the slender hope, perhaps, that some of my practising colleagues will take note of what is being said and look again before they prescribe it for the first time for any patient.
Another great source of minor addiction is the growing demand for slimming tablets, many of which are of the amphetamine series to which the right hon. Member for Ashford referred. However, there are others, not strictly amphetamines or derivatives, which are nearly all addictive, which have adverse effects on blood pressure and on one's psychological outlook. They are primarily stimulants of the central nervous system.
I could not find it in my heart to plead with my right hon. Friend to ban all slimming tablets, although I do plead as loudly as possible to my professional colleagues, more and more of whom are recognising the nature of these drugs. As to their effect on slimming, I am sure that thousands of people would write saying how they have lost weight as a result of taking them. Nevertheless, I would wager that, having lost weight by taking them, they would put it on again the moment they stopped taking them. That is why the use of these drugs should be discouraged and frowned upon. They are addictive and dangerous. Indeed, I know of no such drugs which can be used with safety. My advice is that if people want to become thinner—as so many of us do and should—they should use an effort of will.
The final point with which I wish to deal is that referred to by a number of hon. Members; the social background to addiction or habituation. In an article written by Dr. Bewley—whose work, I am happy to note, is done in my constituency in Tooting Bec Hospital—it was emphasised that because the treatment is such a hopeless undertaking, the only answer is to look more to prevention for a solution of this problem.
Despite all the talk about treatment centres and the way we must tackle the problem of the addict, we might as well wake up to the sad fact that these measures will lead the addict only a short way along the path to rehabilitation and recovery. What we must look at—and l was glad to hear that my right hon. Friend is establishing a social research unit to go into this problem—are ways of discovering why people become addicted.
The reference to addiction being a sort of infection is not an entirely good simile. Nor is it analogous to the spread of an epidemic. Important social factors are involved and the nub of the problem is to discover the means of preventing addict on and the means of discouraging it. Reference has also been made to education. The biggest contribution which education could make would be that of doctors and other health workers contributing towards a solution of this problem. We are bad at this, as we are in most spheres involving the mental health of the community.
If we are to concentrate all our justifiable enthusiasms on eradicating addiction, drug habituation and drug misuse, we should concentrate it in the sphere of prevention and social research. That way lies salvation. The other way lies discouragement and even damnation.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) contributed to the debate by somewhat widening its scope. One of the difficulties of discussing this subject has been the narrow terms of the Brain Committee's Report. The Minister spoke in terms of that Report and was rather narrow in what he said. I do not criticise him for that, but if we merely look at the question of controlling the sources of supply and so on,

then we will fail to get to the nub of the problem.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) referred to the good record of this country in the past in terms of drug use and addiction. In spite of what the hon. Member said, I am sure that we are seeing an increase in both these things at present. We have to ask ourselves why this is happening. I do not believe that it is merely a matter of a society where drugs of various sorts are used more. There is surely some much more fundamental reason why people, particularly young people, feel much more tempted than my generation at the same age did to experiment with drugs. I am certain that it is linked with the increase in juvenile drunkenness and juvenile delinquency generally. These are problems which have deep roots in our society. We shall never cure them merely by political action. It lies rather in the field of religion.
Secondly—and here I am repeating much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said at the beginning of the debate—I plead for more information. In this debate there has been much talk of the new drugs—I think rightly. Concerning a drug which has been much publicised, like L.S.D., we find on the one hand what may almost be called a promotion campaign on the part of certain writers in certain publications. On the other hand, we hear very severely worded warnings. What we want to know are the facts about these things. It is no use whatever merely taking up a moral, disapproving attitude in matters of this kind. The only possible argument which will be listened to by the potential addict, the potential misuser of these drugs, is facts.
It was with great pleasure that I heard of the right hon. Gentleman's plan to set up a research unit. He is on the right lines. Research in these matters must be international. It is a merciful fact that in this country, compared with some other countries at the moment, we have relatively little evidence to put forward. We want a truly international research into these drugs and new drugs as they come forward. We want research—this also was touched on by my right hon. Friend—into whether there is a necessary link between these sort of drugs and hemp and addiction to hard drugs later.
We need to know whether there is truth in what is often said that people come into this country precisely in order to take advantage of our system whereby drugs can be supplied in the National Health Service. Is there some movement into this country to get National Health heroin as we have sometimes been told there is to get National Health teeth and spectacles?
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right in principle in his desire, echoing the Brain Committee Report, to bring treatment into centres. What worries me slightly is whether the psychiatric department of a big teaching hospital is necessarily the best place to expect an addict, or a person who is in danger of becoming an addict, to go. These are large and forbidding places, and the decision to go to such a place involves a very different decision from that which must be taken before a patient goes, as he has had to go in the past, into a doctor's consulting room. I am afraid that it may be much more difficult for people to take the decision to seek treatment and to get in touch with a doctor if it means going into such a great institution, with all the clerks and paraphernalia there involved, compared with the relatively informal approach which is the present situation.
I therefore suggest that at least experiments should be carried out on rather a different type of treatment centre, perhaps run by and linked to a teaching hospital, but nevertheless separate from it and perhaps more informal and easier to get at.
There has been some criticism of the Press in this debate. Most of us who have followed this matter will have seen the article in the Daily Telegraph on 8th December. 1966, by Kenneth Leech, who is described as the Assistant Curate of the Most Holy Trinity, Hoxton. Mr. Leech quotes the Minister's statement that
there are already centres for treatment of addicts, and more beds would be made available if the demand increases
Mr. Leech goes on to quote a letter sent from the Ministry about the availability of beds and then says:
These statements are ludicrous misrepresentations of the truth, as anyone knows who

has ever tried to get one addict into hospital, evasions, equivocations, and interminable delays are the order of the day, while the addict's condition deteriorates and his family are heartbroken.
This description is by somebody who is involved in this matter.
It is no good attempting to set up these new treatment centres and, at the same time, fail to provide the necessary additional finance. The provision has been hopelessly inadequate in the past. If it is to be adequate in the future, a real increase in provision is necessary.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I agree with the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) in one particular. Talks with medical men who have made a close study of this problem have convinced me that it is far greater than the official Home Office figures would suggest, that there may be up to three times as many hard drug addicts as registered with the authorities, and that most of these are in the 17–25 age group.
I agree, too, with those who have expressed regret that the terms of reference of the Brain Committee were drawn narrowly so that they were limited to the problems of heroin and cocaine. The result was that the Committee was
disturbed at the large quantity of habit-forming drugs currently in circulation.
but did not deal with the problem of dependency on amphetamines and barbiturates leading up to the addiction to more dangerous drugs which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) swept over so lightly.
Nor did the Committee deal with the pressing need for effective education of both the public and the medical profession about drug abuse, except in the sense that doctors were urged to prescribe dangerous drugs in words and figures. This failure to come to grips with the problem as a whole must be seen against the background in which in our increasingly permissive society it is not uncommon to find that pop stars, writers, artists, and even university dons take drugs and glory in it. There is a positive duty on the part of the Government and of the medical profession to prevent sickness of this kind from spreading by warning the people of the dangers. That is why I entirely agree with the hon. Lady the


Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) about the importance of education in this regard.
If the Brain Committee took 15 months to come to its conclusions, a further year has elapsed until tonight without any positive action to deal with the situation which, in my view, could escalate very quickly into a national tragedy. In the Interval it has become worse.
Moreover, a new problem has emerged. We have had for some time the evidence of leading psychiatrists in this field that this problem is with us. I refer in particular to the work of Dr. Glatt, the consultant psychiatrist at St. Bernard's Hospital, Southall. He has said that the more adventurous youngsters taking hemp and amphetamines begin to experiment with heroin obtained from registered addicts. They become addicted themselves and introduce a fresh circle to the habit.
In the Lancet of 24th July, 1965, Dr. Glatt quotes cases which have been in his care. Last year he drew the attention of the Society of Medical Officers of Health to what was happening. He said that 19 young male narcotic addicts admitted to St. Bernard's Hospital, who previously had taken amphetamines, started to do so at an average age of 16·5 and that 11 female young narcotic addicts began to do so at an average age of 15·8 years.
These trends have been observed by ether workers in the field for some time past. Dr. Glatt came to two significant conclusions; first, that this addiction to narcotics among teen-agers, hitherto restricted largely to Greater London, is now spreading to cities elsewhere in the country: and, secondly, that there are many addicts not yet known to the Home Office. We all welcome the promise of legislation, and I hope that when it is brought before us it will be seen to deal with the realities of the situation.
The first requirement, it seems to me, is that it is crucial to success in containing and overcoming the drug scourge that the Government secure the fullest co-operation of the medical profession. Secondly, we should regard the abuse of "soft" drugs as part of the same problem as the abuse of "hard" drugs. Treatment centres should not be restricted to dealing with addicts of "hard" drugs.

Thirdly, we should see the addict not as a criminal but as a person who is ill and in dire need of treatment.
One reason why the problem of addiction is smaller in this country than in the United States is that, by and large, the practice has been to leave discretion to doctors in prescribing dangerous drugs. In reversing this, the Brain Committee were, in effect, saying that the majority of the medical profession could not be relied upon to prescribe in this context intelligently. It is not for me to say whether that is justified. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that if the prescription of drugs to addicts is restricted solely to treatment centres, there will be a sharp fall in the amount of heroin and cocaine prescribed legally, but it is almost certain that this will encourage a black market and criminal trafficking on a big scale.
We have the experience of the United States of America. Despite the death penalty and armies of policemen, the attempt to keep heroin out of that country have failed disastrously. True, up to now few doctors in this country who have wanted to help addicts have really been able to do anything except handing out prescriptions. Presumably the setting up of treatment centres would end this practice. I wonder whether this is wholly wise.
It is possible to look at this from two angles. First there is very little chance of curing an addict unless he is kept under hospital surveillance for a long period. The Brain Committee came to the conclusion that the special treatment centres should have powers of compulsory detention. The medical argument for this has been put by Dr. Dale Beckett, the consultant psychiatrist at the admirable Salter Unit, Cane Hill Hospital in Surrey. He is emphatic that the treatment of narcotic drug addicts needs to be prolonged, and that such treatment is likely to last up to six months. He bases this opinion on two considerations; first, that it has been found that the prognosis for these addicts who leave hospital prematurely is correspondingly worse the shorter their length of stay in hospital; and secondly, that heroin addiction leads to a physiological dependence on the drug by all the cells of the body which appear to incorporate it into their metabolic pathways. Put shortly, the


result is that withdrawal of the drug causes an overpowering demand by the body for heroin. Dr. Beckett argues that there is a need for powers similar to those in Section 26 of the Mental Health Act, 1959.
I wish to give sufficient time for my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) to speak, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I gallop over this point, yet it is one of enormous importance. It touches not merely upon the question of effective treatment of the addict but also upon the vital principle of the liberty of the subject.
The B.M.A. working party on drug dependence came out against compulsory detention and treatment, saying that this would not be acceptable. I note that this is the Government's view now, but it is significant that the B.M.A. Council, after hearing Lord Brain, modified its view and agreed with his recommendation that compulsory detention in treatment centres be accepted.
I recognise that this is a serious step. We are here dealing not with criminals but with sick people, though it must not be forgotten that the purpose is not merely to take addicts into these centres to protect them; if they are not cured of addiction, they will inevitably draw others into the net. If the Government are not prepared to use compulsory powers at this stage, it is vital, therefore, to establish a network of approved doctors to whom addicts can go, doctors who are specially trained and equipped to deal with the problem. The B.M.A. working party sensibly recommended that in addition to the treatment centres there should be panels of approved doctors throughout the country. I envisage panels resembling the obstetric list, with the doctors working in close co-operation with the treatment centres and with consultant psychiatrists.
Time does not permit me to say more. I hope that the right hon. Lady will tell us a good deal more about what the proposed legislation will contain. This problem is causing acute anxiety throughout the country not merely to doctors but to social workers and churchmen, indeed to everyone who cares for the future of our youth. It will no longer wait upon the

Government's indecision. We must know tonight what they propose to do.

9.27 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: The House will wish me to leave the maximum time to the right hon. Lady for her reply, so I shall not repeat the cogent points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and by hon. Members on both sides. I shall limit myself to asking the Government five simple—simple to ask—questions. First, I ask in all seriousness that the Prime Minister reconsider his refusal to give one Minister responsibility for this vital problem. The House has seen today an example of what happens when responsibility is divided.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, in a survey which I thought masterly, covered a wide range of the inter-related components of the subject. In reply, we had a serious and constructive but highly compartmentalised speech, a departmental speech, from the Minister of Health. I make no complaint about the content of his speech. I complain about the number of subjects on which he never touched at all when leading for the Government in this debate.
Here are two subjects the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. He did not, so far as I know, deal at all with the vast part that is played by the so-called non-addictive drugs. It was his hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) who rightly reminded him of the large number of deaths caused by barbiturate poisoning. The Minister did not tell us of the link, if there be a link, between the so-called nonaddictive and the hard drugs. Thus, here am I replying for the Opposition to a debate without knowing the Government's view on this large part of the subject.

Mr. K. Robinson: We understood from the Opposition that they wanted to debate dangerous drugs. I have already explained what dangerous drugs are in the statutory context.

Sir K. Joseph: I find that a totally inadequate reply. The Home Secretary was present during the opening speeches but has since left the Chamber. We appreciated his presence, but one would have thought that as Cabinet Minister he


would have been responsible. He is the senior Minister dealing with the subject, and one would have expected him to be here. But he has not been here since the opening speeches. One would have expected—the right hon. Lady laughs. Perhaps she will tell us during her speech what she fines to laugh at.
I think that the House will agree that whether it be in Government or business, or indeed any affairs of man, the most effective attack on any problem will come when one person is put in charge. One Minister should be put in charge of this subject. Without any question of politics entering into this, I ask the Prime Minister to note again the appeals from both sides of the House to reconsider his decision. At present, one Minister can say in reply to a question, "That is for my right hon Friend"; one Minister can pass the buck to another.
Nobody impugns the integrity and zeal of the right hon. Members concerned. But it is not in human nature to try as hard as a human being can, if the blame for failure is shared. That is why I ask the right hon. Lady to take delivery of this request to the Prime Minister from both sides of the House to reconsider Ministerial responsibility and put one Minister in charge.
The second question is—and it will be a sad demonstration of divided responsibility if the right hon. Lady does not reply direct: what will the Government do about money? Are we really to take the Minister of Health's answer to my right hon. Friend as final? Will there be no extra money for the treatment centres? If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that the matter can be tackled within the existing budgets of hospitals, he shows a total failure to grasp the scale of the staff, and therefore the money, that will be involved in providing the service to which the Government are setting their hand. Will the right hon. Lady, therefore, please tell us whether there will or will not be extra money for those treatment centres?
The third question is where the Department of Education and Science comes into the Government's campaign. Do the Government agree that education of the young is part of their task? If so, where does the Secretary of State for Education and Science come in, and why has no

representative of his Ministry been present throughout the debate? So far as I can find from the files, there is no evidence of either the Home Secretary or his predecessor having made any speech on the subject of dangerous drugs. I may be wrong, but the speech has not been recorded so far as I can see in the newspapers. Does that mean that the Government do not recognise education of the young as part of their task? How long are we to wait for an authoritative view from the Government for the guidance of the young and their parents of the dangers of the amphetamines and the barbiturates, and of cannabis and L.S.D.? The question to the right hon. Lady is, do the Government recognise education as part of their task, and when will the Department of Education and Science be involved?
The fourth question to the Government is relatively simple, and one which I hope the right hon. Lady will also answer. Where will an addict who is a criminal be treated? Will there be treatment facilities in prison, or will such an addict be treated in the treatment centres about which the Minister of Health has told us?
My final question—I promised the right hon. Lady 25 minutes for her reply—is about the black market. Is there or is there not a black market, in the Government's view? Is there trafficking in narcotics, and if so, what are the Government doing about it? Have some addicts lost touch with their general practitioners and are they, in the Government's view, already drawing supplies from a black market?
I think that the House has had a serious debate. I congratulate again my right hon. Friend on the masterly speech with which he opened. I hope that the right hon. Lady will now give us some evidence that the Government have a grip on this subject and are not simply supplying the House with a series of departmental briefs unconnected and un-driven forward by the will power, energy and force of the single Minister that we believe should be in charge of this national problem.

9.35 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): The debate has clearly shown the present deep public


concern about drugs. The Government fully share this concern. Drug abuse is a very great scourge which wastes lives. It kills. Here I am not thinking only of the young man who recently fell to his death as a result of the LSD25, but of the young heroin addicts, some of whom die a very early death, and of other drug users killed in accidents when they are "high". Those most in peril are our young people. In spite of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said at the end of his speech, the Government are determined to tackle this very serious social evil.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has already explained the Government's attitude to the recommendations in the Brain Committee Report and has outlined the steps he is taking in consultation with the hospital authorities and the medical profession to set up treatment centres for heroin addicts. We hope it will be possible to arrange for addicts to be introduced to the new centres as soon as these are brought into operation. I believe that a smooth transition to the new system will help addicts and centre staff alike, and that there is no need for a statutory D.-day for the change-over.
The Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to introduce this Session will give effect to the Brain Committee's recommendations on the prescribing of heroin and cocaine to addicts and on the notification of addicts. It will empower the Home Secretary to specify a new category of "restricted" dangerous drugs and provide for the licensing of doctors to prescribe restricted drugs to addicts. It will impose on doctors generally a duty to notify any case of addiction coming professionally to their notice, and it will allow the Home Secretary, by regulations, to specify the particulars to be notified. It will provide for a tribunal to investigate cases of unauthorised prescribing of restricted drugs or of failure to notify an addict, and it will empower the Home Secretary to withdraw authority to prescribe or supply all or any dangerous drugs where this is recommended by the Tribunal.
I should like to emphasise that none of this will affect in any way the existing rights of doctors to prescribe or supply any dangerous drug for the treatment of organic disease.
A number of doctors already notify the Home Office drugs branch when they give treatment to an addict. We welcome this. We are now working out the administrative arrangements needed for the statutory scheme. We want to devise steps which will effectively identify all known addicts but give as little work as possible to notifying doctors, centre staff and the central authority.
These two Measures—the organisation of centres and the notification scheme—should help us to see more clearly than we do now the current extent of addiction to narcotics, the sources from which new addicts obtain their supplies, and the scope for successful treatment. Present indications are that the trend studied by the Brain Committee is continuing. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said, at the end of 1960 the Home Office knew of 437 addicts; in 1964 and 1965 the totals had risen to 753 and 927, respectively. Full information is not yet available for 1966, but the provisional figure for the first three-quarters of the year was 1,036 and the final figure for the year will certainly be higher.
The increase is disturbing even though the numbers are relatively small, but the trend in heroin addiction is more serious, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford pointed out. The Home Office knew of 62 heroin addicts in 1958; of 132 in 1961; of 342 in 1964, and of 521 in 1965. The figures so far available for 1966 is a total of 670, of whom 279 are new cases. We do not yet know the number of those known to be no longer receiving heroin or who have disappeared.
The general situation shows other changes. In 1966, there were more convictions for drug offences than in any previous year. The provisional total for convictions under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965, was 1,174, including 978 for cannabis offences. This compares with a total for 1965 of 767 convictions, including 626 for cannabis. In other words there has been an increase of over 50 per cent. in one year, and convictions under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964, also show an increase. There were 958 convictions in the 14 months ending December, 1965, and 1,261 in 1966, including 676 in the last half year.
The House might ask how far these recent figures indicate a general increase


in drug abuse during the last year. It may well reflect a more successful enforcement of the law and deeper local interest and inquiry into what is happening, so to speak, below the surface. But we do not know whether this is so or whether it is that addicts are increasing at this enormous rate.
The right hon. Member for Ashford, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) raised the question of dual responsibility. In this worrying situation, it is natural to consider whether or not vie have the right organisation. It has been asked in the debate that a senior Minister should be nominated to take charge and to co-ordinate the efforts of the Home Office, the Health Departments and the Department of Education and Science.
I fully understand the concern. Those who have raised the subject want, as we all want, rapid and effective action to solve the drug problem. But we have to face the fact that we are not dealing with one problem but with many. There are problems raised by the good and bad effects of each drug; of controlling the circumstances in which drugs are needed, used and handled; of guiding those who prescribe drugs; of educating those who want to take them and of discouraging those who want to peddle them.
Inevitably, some of these problems spill across the responsibilities of Government Departments, local authority committees and voluntary bodies, and there is nothing unique about that, because many social problems require concerted action by several authorities. The difficulty with drugs abuse is not to pin down responsibility, but to choose the right course of action. From what we have seen, there is no established pattern overseas of integrated control over drug abuse. It is certainly not so in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary is responsible for the control of drugs, and our aim has been to co-ordinate action on the basis of existing responsibilities pending further experience. This still seems to be the best approach. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford as a most welcome member of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, will agree with my view that

the Committee itself has a very important part to play in the matter of co-ordination. It will have full opportunity to review interdepartmental problems and suggest co-ordinated action. Let me repeat that we fully agree with the concern for proper direction of effort. We will keep an open mind on the need for administrative adjustments and we will review experience as we go.
Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the question of amphetamines. It is quite true that many young people continue to misuse these drugs and to obtain them easily on the black market. This is a very serious menace about which we do not know nearly enough. How big is our black market? So far—and I want to be quite honest with the House—we have found no basis for a reliable estimate. We are trying, with the help of the industry, to produce some information for study by the Advisory Committee.
I have been looking at reports from America. There it is estimated that more than one—half of the 10 billion—billion, not million—stimulant and depressant tablets manufactured each year are sold illegally—5 billion of them are sold illegally.
Where do our black market pills come from? Certainly most of them come from theft. Last July one-quarter of a million tablets were stolen from the warehouse of a pharmaceutical company—one-quarter of a million in one theft. Forged prescriptions, perhaps over-prescribing, and petty pilfering all feed the traffic. The figures of prosecutions for December—for just one month—perhaps show something of the pattern of supply. Last December 117 persons were charged with possession of 73,620 tablets and capsules. Of those persons, six held between them 62,414 tablets. Of the remainder, 55 persons held 20 tablets or fewer. Most of the others held more than 100 tablets.
That suggests that there are a large number of pedlars holding relatively small amounts and relying on well-established sources of stolen or diverted stock.
We have to curb this traffic. It may take some time and a number of measures. We hope that the Advisory Committee will give guidance. The problem is enormously complicated by the


very large use of amphetamine tablets for legitimate medical treatment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Excessive use."] The hon. Gentleman says, "Excessive use". Hon. Members who have raised the matter will be pleased to know that the Government are supporting the Lord Chief Justice's Bill to require certain private places of entertainment to be licensed for music, dancing, or similar entertainment. The Bill is due to have its Second Reading in another place at the end of this week, on 3rd February. The Bill will allow the granting of licence to be made subject to conditions—for example, reserving a right of entry to the premises for the police. Control of this kind has already helped to discourage drug abuse in clubs catering for young people in Manchester and elsewhere, where similar power has been taken by local Act, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East will know that it only needed the threat of such legislation in the City of Leeds for some of those undesirable places to close down.
We are looking intensively at the security of amphetamines in distribution. Last year, all firms registered under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964, were asked for and gave information about their security arrangements. Drugs Branch Inspectors are visiting selected firms to see whether proposals can be drawn up for improved security and it is hoped to complete these visits in time to give the Advisory Committee a preliminary report at its next meeting.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can the right hon. Lady tell the House whether she has consulted M. Jean NepÔt, Secretary-General of Interpol, about the international traffic into this country of the drugs about which she is speaking and, if so, with what result?

Miss Bacon: I could not answer that question without notice. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
The problem is to be reviewed in discussions with representatives of the trade shortly. Legislation in the United States imposes no requirements for the safe keeping of stimulant drugs, but it calls for records of transactions to be available for inspection. We are looking at this subject of records and we have also

discussed the problem of the security of drugs in pharmacies with the Pharmaceutical Society and with the Proprietary Association of Great Britain and we hope to devise more safeguards.
Some hon. Members expressed very great concern about the drug L.S.D. I cannot stress too strongly the dangers of taking this drug without medical supervision. The recent report of the death of a youth is by no means the first. American reports leave no doubt about the dangers of mental damage resulting even from a single dose. We are keeping a very close watch on this problem.
The figures which I have given today show that the police are acting vigilantly to check drug abuses and trafficking. A number of forces have made special arrangements for attention to drug problems, including liaison with the Drug Squad at Scotland Yard and with local health and other authorities. The demands of this work will be considered in the current reviews of police organisation and manpower. The subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East will also be studied—that is the question of attaching social workers to the Drug Squad at Scotland Yard.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the right hon. Lady be sure to leave enough time to answer questions about money for the treatment centres?

Miss Bacon: I have answered one or two of the questions which the right hon. Gentleman fired at me so quickly during his speech. I shall come to one or two others.
As for the education of the young and the rôle of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science; the Department of Education and Science is soon to issue a new edition of its pamphlet "Health Education" which will give much fuller information to teachers and others and advise about drugs and it is taking all possible steps within the schools to see what it can do.
The right hon. Gentleman asked where an addict, if a criminal, would be treated. I had not given this a great deal of thought until the right hon. Gentleman raised the matter, but I would think that the court would have a good deal to do


with it and would order whether a person should be treated in hospital or in prison and, of course, in prisons we have some facilities for the treatment of those who have taken drugs.
I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has aid about money for treatment centres. I am sure that this is a matter to which he will give the greatest attention, but at the end of this debate I could not add anything to what he has said.

Sir K. Joseph: No money.

Miss Bacon: My right hon. Friend did not say that there would be no money. He dealt with the question and I cannot add to what he has said. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East will read what my right hon. Friend said when it is reported in HANSARD tomorrow.

Mr. Braine: The Minister did not mention the scale of the problem upon which the right hon. Lady has touched. If there are a thousand hard drugs addicts who are under treatment, and this is an understatement of the size of the problem, is it not clear that the reason for not to taking the appropriate action is lack of money?

Mr. K. Robinson: No.

Miss Bacon: What the hon. Gentle-mail said is not true. I can give an assurance that the money will be available to deal with this problem, otherwise all our discussions today and the Bill which we are to bring forward will be as nothing. I give the assurance that the money will be available to deal with this problem.

Sir K. Joseph: But that is not what the Minister said. In answer to a question he said categorically that there would be no extra money.

Miss Bacon: If the right hon. Gentleman will read what my right hon. Friend said he will find that my right hon. Friend did not say "No extra money". He said "No earmarked money". I can give an assurance that the money will be available to deal with this problem.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Lady must realise that if there is no extra money, then money for this must come

from something else for which it has been budgeted. The Government are not making themselves clear. Do they intend to provide money or do they intend to take money for this purpose from something for which it is already provided and which they will not then be able to finance?

Miss Bacon: My right hon. Friend dealt with this. He said that there would be no earmarked money. But I can give an assurance that the money will be available for these centres. Obviously we could not promise to have these centres running unless the money were available.
I wanted to deal with research, but my time is nearly exhausted. Research into this problem is very important. The right hon. Member for Ashford raised the relationship between drug addicts and those taking amphetamines, on the one hand, and crime, on the other hand. I assure him that we are carrying out projects to see what relationship there is between the taking of drugs and crime, because this is a very important subject.
This has been a valuable debate. We shall study carefully all the suggestions and points which have been made. The measures which the Government have set on foot will be pressed forward with vigour. The problems, however, cannot be solved by the Government or the police or doctors alone. The public must play its part. From time to time suggestions are made that the dangers of drug taking are exaggerated and that the casualties are trifling. We need to resist those who minimise the problem just as much as those who exaggerate it.
Drug abuse in one form or another has been a major social problem in most parts of the world for many years, and it threatens to be with us for a long time. I ask parents and all others concerned with young people to be alert to the dangers of trafficking or misuse. We all have a duty to prevent young people from becoming dependent on drugs, and the Government intend to discharge that duty to the utmost.

Mr. Joseph Harper (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REMUMERATOPM OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Millan.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Peter Bessell, Dr. John Dunwoody, Mr. Tony Gardner, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Bert Hazell, Mr. J. E. B. Hill, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Clifford Kenyon, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Elystan Morgan, Mr. Derek Page, Mr. Patrick Wall, and Mr. Tudor Watkins be Members of the Committee.—[Mr. Harper.]

Hon. Members: Object.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Prices and Incomes may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of one and a half hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — PRICES AND INCOMES

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I beg to move,
That the Temporary Restrictions on Pay Increases (No. 2) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1468), dated 23rd November 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be withdrawn.
Throughout the debates on incomes policy in the House over the last year, we on this side strenuously opposed the introduction of an element of compulsion into the Government's prices and incomes policy. But it is not merely our opposition to the introduction of compulsion into their policy which concerns us this evening. The Government's policy, from it; inception in its compulsory form last July, has been based essentially on an element of intimidation.
When the Prices and Incomes Bill was in Standing Committee, we on this side consistently stressed that it would be impossible for the Government to ensure that prices and incomes were controlled individually. Although they denied this at the time, I think it has become abundantly clear that the Government now pick individual cases and then take statutory powers against particular groups of individuals and use this threat to intimidate general compliance with their over all policy. Therefore, it is not only the element of compulsion but the element of intimidation to which we object.
Earlier this evening, the Minister of Defence said that the argument in favour of the incomes policy was that it must be applied to everyone. Yet it is abundantly clear that it is not applying to everyone, and the Government do not have any clear statistics on a number of extremely important groups—for example, those who are paid salaries—as to whether the policy is working. This Order is a typical case in which a small group of people has been singled out and has had thrown against it the whole weight of Government and of legislation and the Statutory Instrument procedure. The group consists, I understand, of about 62 individuals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) earlier today stressed that the Government were singling out a few thousand of the Armed

Forces for special treatment. In this case, an even narrower group is involved. In some instances, it can be narrowed down to individuals to whom one can give individual names. It is surely wrong that Government should be conducted on this basis.
Before turning to the details of the case, I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State, Home Department, who I understand is to reply to the debate—we certainly cannot complain that there is a lack of variety among the Ministers who reply to debates on prices and incomes policy—exactly what criteria the Government use when deciding whether to make an Order against a particular group of people, whether it be with regard to an increase in wages or an increase in prices. For example, do they propose to make Orders against anyone who has the audacity to fight in the courts the case which they believe they have for an increase in wages or prices? Will prices and incomes orders be slapped only on people who resort to the law of the country to defend their legitimate interests? Or are the Government selecting those people with the best case for defending their position? This certainly seems to be so in respect of the prices and incomes Order concerning the launderers and dry cleaners who had an extremely strong case and the Government used their powers to make an example of them. In the case which we are considering tonight much the same principle seems to have been applied.
Thirdly, is the decision whether to slap an Order on a certain group determined merely by the individual whim of a Minister? I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he can make clear exactly what basis the Government use when deciding whether to impose an order.
The case under consideration concerns a group of draughtsmen employed by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police. It appears that as the result of a Pay Research inquiry, Civil Service draughtsmen were awarded a pay increase in May 1966 which in one case was backdated to 1st January, 1965, and in the other case was backdated to 1st January, 1966. In addition, however, to the Civil Service draughtsmen who are normally covered by these agreements, architectural and


engineering draughtsmen, employed by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District are normally included.
Hitherto, the practice has been for their conditions of service, in particular their rates of pay, to correspond with those of the civil servants. One might, therefore, reasonably have supposed that when the award was made last May it would also be applied to the draughtsmen of the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police as well as to draughtsmen who were civil servants. It appears that instructions were issued that the Civil Service draughtsmen should actually receive the increased rate of pay which was paid in June and July and in August also.
However, in view of its incomes policy, the Government apparently took fright and a "hold-tight" direction was issued for the Civil Service draughtsmen. This was subsequently reversed on the ground that other comparable draughtsmen had already received a similar increase. But in the case of the draughtsmen employed by the Metropolitan Police Receiver alone, it was decided that the increase should not be given to them on the ground that they were not civil servants whereas the other draughtsmen were civil servants.
In addition to this, it transpires that the reason why the Metropolitan Police draughtsmen had not received their increase was because of a purely technical hold-up caused by the breakdown or the delay in implementing a computer procedure for making payment. I shall be glad if the Under-Secretary will confirm whether this was the case.
It is surely absurd that the Government should exclude from their prices and incomes freeze a group of civil servants and at the same time say that this arrangement should not extend to the Metropolitan Police draughtsmen merely because there was delay in making payment. This comes out clearly in the background note which the Department of Economic Affairs issued at the time, the second paragraph of which states that
The pay increase claimed by the draughtsmen was not paid out in the Receiver's Office by the 20th July.
It does not state that the increase had not been negotiated or that the people

in question had not been told about it. It was merely that it had not actually been paid out. For this reason, we feel that these people have been unjustly treated.
I pass now to consider under what part of the Prices and Incomes Act this action has been taken. Clearly, it comes within the scope of the Prices and Incomes Standstill White Paper, which subsequently became Schedule 2 of the Prices and Incomes Act. The House well knows that that Schedule was not substituted until the day after the Bill received its Third Reading. The Government substituted a quite different Schedule, which was not debated at the Committee and Report stages in this House at all. This Schedule, which was then used only a day after the Royal Assent to impose a particular restraint on this group of draughtsmen, has not been considered by the House as the Schedule to the Act.
Another point is that the Metropolitan Police draughtsmen will never be able to obtain the pay which they would otherwise have received. It was reasonable to suppose that they would have had their pay backdated, like the other draughtsmen, and that they would then have received it when the others did. Instead, they will not receive the additional amount.
Their case was, therefore, taken up by the Institute of Professional Civil Servants. I should explain that the draughtsmen employed by the Metropolitan Receiver are not civil servants but are members of the Institute. As a result, this group put down two legal actions to cover two specific points which they felt ought to be taken to the courts.
The first concerned a Mr. Phillips, a new entrant, who had been recruited to the Receiver's Office. He had been offered a certain sum, but, when he appeared on the job, was told that he would be paid a smaller sum. The case was brought and should have been heard on 18th January. However, it was withdrawn, because the Receiver agreed to pay the full amount of the increase. In the second case, the Institute took out another writ which, I understand, concerns the more general principles.
It is these two cases which I should like to take up with the Under-Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: This is not sub judicie, is it?

Mr. Higgins: This is a point on which I would appreciate your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am asking for information at the moment. The first case, I gather, is closed. I am concerned about the second; is it still sub judice?

Mr. Higgins: This is something of which I am not sure, but perhaps the Under-Secretary could inform us.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): Perhaps I can assist the House. There is a case, which is sub judice, which challenges the effect of the Order, but the original case, which led to the making of the Order, is finished and is not sub judice.

Mr. Higgins: Perhaps we might proceed on that basis, and I will try to keep within the rules of Order.
What the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said raises some very different questions. He is saying that the case of Mr. Phillips led the Government to lay the Order. If that is correct, some odd situations arise. Mr. Phillips was recruited into the Receiver's Office and was originally offered a salary of £1,188 a year, but when he took up his employment he was told that he would be paid only £1,068 a year. Therefore, the case which the Under-Secretary has just mentioned was brought to the court but was dropped after the Receiver decided that he should not defend it.
Consequently, the additional amount was paid to the gentleman concerned, who received the full amount. I should have thought that this case anyway came outside the terms of the Government freeze, because it was a case not of a wage increase but of someone being recruited to a different firm. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have never argued that cases of people changing their jobs for a higher salary should be covered by the freeze. If that were so, no one would be likely to be attracted to any job within this period. Yet to my surprise I am told by the Under-Secretary tonight that it is this case which prompted the tabling of the Order. If that is so, am I wrong in thinking that it is contrary to

the Prices and Incomes Act, since such action would not be justified within the Government's prices and incomes policy?
I pose this question in the hope that we will be given a clear answer, because I want to know whether such a case comes within the terms of the Government's freeze and, if it does not, why this Order has been tabled and why was it necessary to bring a case forward in the first instance?
Having dealt with a particular issue—on which it is vital that we receive a clear reply—I turn to the more general case concerning all the draughtsmen who are employed by the Metropolitan Police Receiver and who have been prevented from having their pay back-dated in the same way as those who are employed as civil servants.
As I understand the position, the Order we are considering was laid before Parliament and came into operation on 24th November. It has also been stipulated that only the Home Secretary should have the right to give consent to a pay increase for this group of people and that he should decide whether consent should be given for an increase. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman did something somewhat unusual—indeed, I suggest something very unusual indeed—for while he gave consent for a pay increase in respect of these draughtsmen, he also said that that should be deferred until such time—and I urge hon. Members to note that it was not such time as the end of the period of severe restraint—as the back pay that they had been paid had been collected back into the coffers of the Government. This is a complicated matter but, to put it another way; the draughtsmen's pay was frozen, although they had in fact been awarded a pay increase. They had been paid the money between the date of the award and the date of the Order, because the Receiver had decided that he was not empowered by law to refuse to pay it to them.
But on 24th November the Order is laid by the Government and it says, first, that they should not be entitled to their pay increase within this period and, secondly, that, as they had already been cunning enough—perhaps "cunning" is not the word to use; "fortunate" might be more appropriate and would probably


be the word which the Government would prefer to use—I should say deserving enough—to get the money, because they had done such a wicked thing the Government decided to collect that amount back from them by deferring their pay increase until such time as it had been collected back.
This is an extraordinary state of affairs indeed and one of the major reasons why my hon. Friends and I feel it important to ask that the Order be withdrawn. That being so, I trust that we will be given a clear explanation from the Under-Secretary about whether this is, in fact, what the Government are doing, and particularly whether it is the Government's intention to get back from the people who obtained this back-dated pay this amount of money by deferring the pay increase which they would normally have obtained at the date applicable to similar people.
There are other complicated points which arise on this issue. The matter is extremely complicated. One need only consider Section 3 of the Order to see what I mean, for it states:
In comparing the rate of any remuneration with earlier remuneration paid before the date of coming into operation of this Order, so far as required for the purpose of giving effect to this Order, account shall only be taken of such earlier remuneration as fell within the period of three months ending immediately before that date.
that is, the date of the Order. In view of the extraordinary circumstances of the case I have described, I think the expression:
such earlier remuneration as fell within the period of three months ending immediately before that date 
requires some clarification by the Under-Secretary.
Is it the amount that this group of people were told they would receive and subsequently found that they would not receive unless they took action? Which amount are the Government taking as the relevant price or wage for comparison? We have the original wage rate, secondly, the increased wage rate and, thirdly, the increased wage rate which they were paid but which is subsequently to be reimbursed by the Government collecting it back.
Which of these possible amounts is being used in making the comparison which the Government will use when

applying this Order? Will the Under-Secretary give us a clear definition of what he thinks the expression
such earlier remuneration as fell within the period of three months ending immediately before that date 
means? Which of the three possible concepts I have outlined will he employ when he interprets this Order?
In the case which the Clyde Shipyard workers brought in regard to a productivity agreement, they were given an increase even though it might have been considered to be within the period of the freeze because:
a substantial proportion of those involved had already received it before 20th July.
Is not this case as entitled to get their increase on the same grounds? I understand that senior police officers were given an award from 1st January, 1966, and this was concluded before 20th July. I am in favour of this increase being given, as I am sure we all are, but, if it could be given, why should the increase not be given to the draughtsmen? How does the Under-Secretary distinguish this case from that of the draughtsmen?
I turn to a point concerned with the way in which the Government are proposing to recover the increased amount actually paid to the draftsman. Section 33(2) of the Prices and Incomes Act states clearly:
An employer shall not under any circumstances be entitled, in consequence of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to contracts of employment, to recover any remuneration which he has paid.
Is it not true that the Government are endeavouring to recover by the device I outlined in the middle of my speech the remuneration to which these people are entitled and which they actually received as back pay? How can the Government take this action without being in conflict with Section 33(2) of the Act?
I have endeavoured to outline an extremely complex subject. I do not think there can be any doubt that there are a number of very serious points of principle involved which we ought to examine. I have endeavoured to keep within your Ruling, Mr. Speaker in regard to the second case which the Under-Secretary says is sub judice. But I cannot refrain from observing that we are now in a situation in which a case was brought before the courts and has not been


heard and yet the Government seeks to impose an Order which might influence the ultimate decision in that case, which may be heard at a subsequent date. I may not be right but I shall be grateful in the Under-Secretary can clarify the situation and, as a lawyer, give a legal opinion on it.
A final point ought to be made which is prompted by the headlines in the Financial Times this morning. The Government and the incomes policy are rather like the story of an individual who came out of a consulting room after seeing a psychiatrist and was asked, "Are you coming or going?". He replied, "If I knew that, I should not be here". The Government now find themselves in a period between severe restraint and the freeze.

Mr. Speaker: Order. So far the hon. Gentleman has been in order. He must keep in order.

Mr. Higgins: I shall have no difficulty in doing that, because I have only two more sentences. The Government's prices and incomes policy is in the interim period between freeze and severe restraint, and we on this side are totally opposed to the element of compulsion which it contains. I hope therefore that my hon. Friends will vote in favour of the Motion that this Statutory Instrument be withdrawn.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I support everything which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has said. Although this is an isolated case, it is the forerunner of many cases the House will have to deal with. This arose from the decision of the Pay Research Unit. Hon. Members know the valuable work which the Unit does. The main reason why it was set up was that it was difficult to measure the efficiency of, and therefore the rate of remuneration which should be paid to civil servants. It has always been accepted that the Unit's advice, which is tendered after taking into account comparable trades and professions, should be taken as valid.
The Unit does not make a report on each part of the Civil Service every so often, because it has a long way to go round. It makes reports only at long intervals for various parts of the Civil

Service. The Under-Secretary cannot get away with it by saying that technically the men involved are not civil servants. Their remuneration has always been related to that of civil servants in that grade.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has been given an impossible task tonight. It is interesting to see the various Ministers who have to stand at the Despatch Box to support the Government's prices on incomes policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt do his best. I do not see how he can justify the fact that the reason why these people were not paid was purely the inefficiency of the system of pay and remuneration. Throughout industry most of us are concerned with the dispute which goes on mainly because of a mistrust between one side and the other. This is a case in which the Government, by their policy, tend to create a greater mistrust between employee and employer.
The whole matter has come to a head in the case of Mr. Phillips. This was a matter in which a man was taken into the Service under certain agreed conditions. Those conditions were not fulfilled. Although the case was at first contested in court, finally it was not contested. Even if one accepts this case, the hon. Gentleman is still in a dilemma, for if one accepts that new recruits will be taken on at a certain remuneration, that will obviously be a higher rate of remuneration than that which is received by those who are already employed. Therefore, one would reach a situation in which it would pay the normal servant, whether he be a civil servant or otherwise, to leave his employment for a time and then go back to be re-employed. This could easily happen.
The Government now believe that they are out of their main difficulties because we are now moving into a period of severe restraint. But I would utter a word of caution here. Under the criterion laid down under the Second Schedule of the Act, only about half of the total membership of the T.U.C. would ever have a chance of justifying any increase at all during the next six months of severe restraint.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going rather wide of the Order that is under discussion.

Mr. Mawby: I apologise for having trespassed too far, Mr. Speaker. I was making those observations purely by way of an example.
This is an important case, particularly bearing in mind the various groups of people who have been allowed to have increases. My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of these cases, and in particular he referred to a case in which an increase was allowed because a substantial proportion of the men involved had already received increases. Bearing in mind the case in which the only reason for the non-receipt of an increase was the inefficiency of the machine, I suggest that this Order should be withdrawn.
The other important point made by my hon. Friend concerns a situation which seems to be contrary to the Second Schedule, namely that those who have received increases, although they may not repay the money, will mark time for a long time until everybody else catches up with them. This is an important point upon which we would expect an answer from the Under-Secretary.
I believe this is probably the most flagrant example of a number of cases which were bound to arise when such an Act as the Prices and Incomes Act was brought in and, as my hon. Friend said, the Second Schedule was put into effect only one day after the House had decided that the Bill should be given a Third Reading.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I wish to refer to the specific case of Mr. Phillips who has been the unwitting case, so far as we can tell, of this Order.
Mr. Phillips, the draughtsman, had a job—presumably a job with security and expectations. So far as I know, he was happy in this job. But he had the offer of another job with the Metropolitan Police Receiver, and presumably he felt that it was a better job. So far as I know, it offered him more money. It offered him £1,188 a year, I believe.
Mr. Phillips, like most men, must have gone home and discussed this new job with his wife. He must have had to weigh up the attractions of the new job, the new salary, the security that was perhaps offered in working for the Metropolitan Receiver, and against those

advantages he no doubt had to weigh the drawbacks of giving up his existing job with all its familiar habits and his friends. Finally, after discussion with his family, Mr. Phillips makes his decision. He decides that he will go and work for the Metropolitan Receiver at a salary of something better than £20 a week. No doubt, he and his wife made some plans on the basis of that salary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member will link what he is saying with this Order.

Mr. Griffiths: I was linking it with the Order, Mr. Speaker, in this way, that Mr. Phillips is the subject of the Order, and his case is the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Phillips' case may or may not have been the cause or fons et origo of the Order, but the Order has a specific purpose, and the hon. Gentleman must come to the Order itself.

Mr. Griffiths: When Mr. Phillips, the draughtsman of whom I speak, went to his new job, he was almost at once subjected to the Order, and the effect was that, when he went to take up his work, enthusiastic about what it would mean for himself and his family, he found that, instead of being paid £20 plus he was told that he would receive £20 minus. When he arrived at his new work, his expectations high, he received immediately, or for all practical purposes immediately, a cut in pay.
The effect of the Order for this man, and the particular man is an example of all men who might be affected in this way, is that he has been offered a job at one rate of pay but, when he arrived to do his new job, he receives, for all practical purposes, a salary cut. He has been the victim of false pretence. The personal disappointment arising from the Order is bad enough, but what worries me more is the breach of faith.
There can be no more lofty, distinguished or law-abiding office in this country than that of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, but the Receiver is put in the position of offering a job at one salary and then being told to cut it the moment the man comes to work for him. The Government are requiring the Metropolitan Receiver to break his pledged word to this man.
It is no wonder that the Receiver's legal advisers told him that he had better pay. They are men who understand equity and justice. They realise that, in the light of those principles, there was no leg on which the Receiver could possibly stand. They told him to pay and he paid. But at that point the Government came in with their Order and said that the principles of justice and equity should not apply, that the man should not receive the money he had be en led to expect, that his family should not have the television set, the sofa or whatever it was that they had ordered in expectation of the new pay he would receive. The Government are using the power of Parliament to require the Metropolitan Receiver to break his word.
What an example to the police forces of this country. What an example to all men who may wish to redeploy—to use the modern jargon. The Government say to any man who wishes to go to a new job at a higher salary which will meet his ambition, "It shall be within the authority of the Government to disappoint you and take away that prospect". I had not thought to live to see the day when the British Government would punish a man not because he broke his contract but because he kept it. That is the effect of the Order. The Metropolitan Receiver is told that the great engine of Government and Parliament can be used against him because he intended to keep his word and contract.
I shall with great enthusiasm join my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight in voting against this Order in protest against injustice and false pretence.

10.40 p.m.

Sir Edward Brown: As a member of the Standing Committee on the Prices and Incomes Bill, I made it clear in my own mind that we would have to oppose any Orders such as that now before us.
Before making any further remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you whether the Interpretation Act 1889 applies
… for the interpretation of this Order as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.
Is the Order valid, in view of the fact that Schedule 2 of the Act was inserted without any discussion in this House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter of political argument on which the hon. Gentleman may not appeal to Mr. Speaker.

Sir E. Brown: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see how the Government can have it both ways. If they want Schedule 2, under which the Order was made, they cannot have it the other way round and take away from a man an increase of pay which he has received. Under the Act, they now rely on Part IV, which says at Section 33:
An employer shall not under any circumstances be entitled, in consequence of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to contracts of employment, to recover any remuneration which he has paid.
That has happened. These men have received their money and because they are in part of the Civil Service, the Government have now made an Order to get the money back. Every trade union leader studying these Orders has a first-class case to make in the law courts. It cannot be held that the Orders are legal when they come before the courts.
If the Act is supposed to be legal, let the Government be bound by it. I see that there is some amusement on the Government Front Bench, but this is not a matter of amusement, because although hon. Members on the Benches behind will support their Front Bench on this temporary restriction of pay tonight, none of them believe in it, and they would be as willing as we are to fight it if they were not muzzled. Let there be no amusement. The time is not far distant when Orders like this will produce a mass of protests in the country. We are giving voice to it tonight.
I therefore seriously draw attention to the fact that the Government are trying to break their own law with the Order. Part IV of their Act, which relates to the recovery of money by an employer, says quite clearly that no money having been paid out can be recoverable. The Government, as employers, are taking action against those people and are taking money back.
For the reasons which my hon. Friends have given, I shall be glad to go into the Lobby to vote against the Order, as against every such Order to come before the House.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: I wish to address myself to only two rather limited aspects of the Order. The first concerns what in my opinion is clearly an injustice against an individual, an individual who applied for a job, got it at a particular rate of pay and then found on arriving at work that that pay was knocked down to a lower level. This is unjust because it applies to him in a peculiar and not a general manner.
It is true that one of the ways in which many draughtsmen can get round the effect of the wages freeze is by going to another job. However, this is a peculiar case; it can have happened to very few and to my knowledge has happened to only one man, who is singled out by the Order. It is an injustice, which must be faced.
There is one further aspect of the matter with which I wish to deal, concerning particularly the engineering draughtsmen referred to in the Order. The effect of the freezing of engineering draughtsmen's wages is more general, but my argument is no less appropriate. The Order will encourage mobility of labour. Presumably that was one of the intentions of the Prices and Incomes Act. However, it will encourage the wrong form of mobility. It will encourage men who have valuable experience—experience needed for a particular job—to leave that job and go elsewhere to places where their experience is not so valuable, where, indeed, they will have to learn things before they can use their skills to their maximum ability.
These men will go not because they wish to leave their jobs by any normal considerations but because this will be the only way to get what they would otherwise have got in the normal progression of their wages. During recent years, the unions and other bodies representing draughtsmen have established a salary pattern which lays down minimum scales for different kinds of work, but these are minimum scales within the real meaning of the word "minimum". Few men draw salaries on these minima. They receive advanced scales for special skills and responsibilities. If we reduce the rates for men on salary scales like this, it will damage the ability of employers to retain such skills and responsibilities.
The Order should be withdrawn to enable these wage increases to be paid which have been found to be suitable to the particular skills of draughtsmen in a particular job. Its withdrawal would prevent the undesirable change of labour in a form which, I am sure, was not in the mind of any Minister who has said that the Government want to encourage mobility of labour.

10.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): Some of the arguments advanced tonight have been arguments against any Orders being made under Part IV of the Act but most have been directed against this Order because of the special circumstances which exist in its case. I have been asked a number of complex questions on the Order and its effect is by no means simple. The hon. Gentleman for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) made a speech entirely devoted to a point which does not arise under the Order and utterly misconstrued the effect under it. It is clearly desirable that I should set out exactly what has happened in this case and what the effect of the Order is.
The Receiver of the Metropolitan Police has some 3,000 civilian staff. These include 62 architectural and engineering draughtsmen. Hitherto, the Receiver's staff's pay and conditions of service have been aligned with comparable grades of the Civil Service but the staff themselves are not covered by the Civil Service Pay Agreement.
The position, therefore, of the Receiver's draughtsmen is that they are treated and have been treated in the past in the same way as the Civil Service draughtsmen. Variations in pay which applied to the Civil Service draughtsmen have in due course been applied also to the Receiver's draughtsmen. But, again, they are not a party to the Civil Service Pay Agreement.
On 15th June, under Treasury instructions, the Civil Service draughtsmen had their pay increased, with a retrospective increase dating from 1st January, 1965, and the dispute which arises on the effect of the Order concerns essentially a pay increase that should have been made or perhaps could have been regarded as being due in 1965.


In the normal course of events, increases and retrospective increases in the pay of the Civil Service draughtsmen would have been followed by an increase in the pay of the Receiver's draughtsmen.
There has, however, always been a certain time lag. It is, for administrative reasons, not always possible for the Receiver to pay out increases immediately. In the past, this has not always been very important because, generally, where there has been a retrospective pay increase, this has remedied itself. But on this occasion the Receiver's pay branch had to deal with a very large claim relating to some 1,000 cleaners and also, at that stage, the branch was changing from a mechanical pay system to a computer system. It was not quite accurate to say that it was a case of a computer breaking down.
The Receiver's intention was to make the pay increase effective in the last week of August, but, of course the July measures intervened. The Receiver's draughtsmen were caught by the freeze on the wrong side of the operative date. I do not deny for one moment that this caused hardship. It is of small consolation that it has also been hard on others; but if, in fact, a different pay policy operates on a particular date, then, of course, there is bound to be hardship on the part of those who fall on the wrong side of that date. A line had to be drawn, and the Receiver's draughtsmen were on the wrong side of the line.
It means that under paragraph 19 of the White Paper, there was clearly an undertaking which ranked as an existing commitment. It was a commitment which, in effect arose before 19th July, but which was to be implemented after 19th July. Under paragraph 21 of the White Paper, the operative date of the retrospective increase was to be postponed for six months. It meant that the increase was to be back-dated, not as from the 1st January, 1965, but as from the 1st July, 1965. It also meant that the increase was not to be payable under the standstill until the end of 1966.
What happened next was that after preliminary correspondence and discussion with the Institute of Professional Civil Servants, which represents this section of tie Receiver's staff, two members decided to take proceedings. One of them was Phillips, whose case was some-

what special. Another was called Griffin, who in effect, sued on behalf of all those who were benefiting from a large retrospective increase. Like their brethren in A.S.S.E.T., they were not prepared to accept voluntarily a standstill which the majority of trade unionists accept. It was quite clear that these kinds of attempts to break the standstill and to gain an advantage which others who voluntarily accepted it would not gain, were bound to lead to the use of Government powers under Part IV.
I was asked in what sort of cases these powers would be used and what Orders would be made. Clearly one of the categories in which these Orders will apply is where, by suing, certain people try to evade the effect of the standstill to secure advantages which others have voluntarily forgone. If the Government did not make the Order, there would be discrimination between those who accepted the standstill and those who did not, and there would be penalisation, in effect, against those who co-operated. It was, in that respect, a similar position to the case of A.S.S.E.T. and Thorn which the House has already discussed.
On the advice of counsel, the Receiver settled these claims and agreed to pay arrears in pay where applicable from 1st January, 1965. To make the standstill effective, the First Secretary made an Order on 23rd November, which is the subject of this Motion. It is extremely important to establish the effect of the Order. In the case of those who have received retrospective increases for the period before 1st July, 1965, under the settlement made by the Receiver, the Order freezes the pay to the level at which it was immediately before the Order was made—that is, to the level it was without the increase.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that this is the crucial point. He says that the Order freezes the pay to the level at which it was immediately before the Order was made. Were not the men receiving the increased amount at that stage?

Mr. Taverne: They had not been paid the amount at the time when the Order was made; so the amount which they were receiving before the Order was made was the lower level without the increase.
I was asked about the wording of Article 3 of the Order and the final words:
within a period of three months ending immediately before that date".

Mr. Higgins: I apologise for interrupting a second time, but this is clearly the crux of the whole matter. Was not the rate which had been agreed before the date of the standstill in fact that to which they were entitled at the date when the Order was made, and have they not in fact been paid that amount, albeit after the date when the Order was made?

Mr. Taverne: Yes, they have been paid that amount. They were paid that by the Receiver and after the date when the Order was made.

Mr. Julius Silverman: When was the court order made for the payment of this money? Was not this before the Order was introduced?

Mr. Taverne: No court order was made. This action was settled out of court. [HON. MEMBERS: "When was counsel's advice given?"] When counsel's advice was given is neither here nor there. The position was that the rate of remuneration before the Order was made was the lower rate of remuneration and it is at that rate that the pay is frozen for those who have had the increase before 1st July, 1965. Perhaps I can go on to explain the effect of the Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will listen to this, because this is the crux of the matter, as he rightly said, and there has been considerable misconception about the effect of the Order.

Mr. Higgins: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman just clarify why counsel said the wrong rate? Why when asked what the rate was did counsel say that it was the rate which the hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying was the wrong rate?

Mr. Taverne: In effect, the Order overrides counsel's view of what the law was, exactly as happened in the Thorn case. This is an argument about the effect of the Order to which I shall come and which is the subject of later proceedings.

But the position is quite clear. In effect, the Order freezes the pay to the level at which it was immediately before the Order was made. The Order freezes the pay in the case of those, and only those, who have received retrospective payments in respect of the period before 1st July, 1965. The intention of the Order is to restrict the total emoluments of each draughtsman to what he would have received if he had voluntarily accepted the standstill, in order to secure universality and not give the advantage, as in the Thorn case, to those who sued.
When this has been achieved, when the total emoluments are what a person would have received if he had stuck to the standstill, when this position has been achieved through keeping the pay at the non-increase level, the pay will be restored to a higher level, and this will be done under the terms of the instrument of consent which has been made by the Home Secretary.
The effect of the Order, therefore, is that it relates only to back pay for the increased rate between 1st January and 1st July, 1965. No one who entered the Receiver's employment after 1st July, 1965, is affected by the Order. Mr. Phillips is not affected by the Order. The whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) was totally misconceived in its judgment of the effect of the Order, and for that reason I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not oppose the Order when we come to vote on it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wallowing about in a lot of technicalities and I am sure that he is hoping to get to the end of his brief as soon as he can, but he is not carrying the House with him. He says that Mr. Phillips is not affected by the Order. In that case, why has his pay been reduced? Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the retrospection in the Order goes back only to the amount of pay which a man was getting before the Order was made. I suggest that the amount of pay which the Government should have had in mind was not what the man was actually receiving in pound notes, but the rate of pay which he had been promised. It is to this rate of pay that the Government should direct their attention and not the actual pounds, shillings and pence.

Mr. Taverne: The last part of that argument has been used before and met before in the case or Thorn. In fact the hon. Member is wrong about Mr. Phillips, who is receiving the increased rate of pay. The only people who are affected are those who were getting the retrospective pay increase between 1st January and 1st July, 1965. The Order has not been properly understood by hon. Members opposite and to a large extent the arguments directed against it are totally invalid.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I accept that because of the advice given by counsel to the Official Receiver, Mr. Phillips is getting the pay. In practice, counsel has advised the Official Receiver to take no notice of this Order. For all practical purposes the man is getting the pay which the Government by this Order are seeking to deny him.

Mr. Taverne: The Government are not seeking by this Order to deny Mr. Phillips increased pay. The effect of this Order relates only to back pay in a period of six months in 1965 and it does not affect Mr. Phillips.
There is still one case pending and that relates to the effect of the Order. It relates to what the effect is in the case of those who are affected, assuming the Order is still in force through the actions of the House.

Sir John Eden: This is chaos.

Mr. Taverne: I agree that there are hon. Members opposite who have never grasped the implications of the prices and incomes policy. They have never been able to make up their minds whether the standstill was necessary and, if necessary, whether they wanted to see it enforced. This is precisely the point which arises again and again when these Orders are being debated. If there were no alternative to making the standstill, then the standstill had to be universal. We then had to see that it applied not only to those who voluntarily accepted it, which is the vast majority, but also to those who did not accept it and who tried to gain special advantage for themselves. This is the fundamental fact which hon. Members have failed to grasp in the case of this and any other Order on this subject. But it is nevertheless

the reason why this pay freeze has been widely accepted and has very wide support in the country.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made the point that the effect of the Order in certain cases is to override legal obligations. I see that he has now left the Chamber. I beg his pardon. I see that he has moved from his previous seat, which was perhaps too close to the Liberals, to a position more directly in opposition.
It is true that in certain cases the effect of the Orders is to over-ride legal obligations. That is the Government's intention. We have asked everyone voluntarily in the period of stand still to forgo that to which they might legally be entitled. In certain cases where court action has been taken an Order has over-ridden the effect of contracts. That is not totally unknown to the law. It has happened in the law of landlord and tenant and in many different circumstances. It is the only way of making the standstill universal.
Turning to the circumstances of this case, it is true that if one has to draw a line it is sometimes difficult to know on which side of the line to put a particular case. There are bound to he certain anomalies and injustices, and I concede that this case is not one in which it is necessarily easy to see on which side of the line to put it. But in fact this is not a case which is on all fours with that of the Clyde Shipyard agreement. These draughtsmen were not parties to the Civil Service agreement. They were those whose pay was linked to the Civil Service pay agreement. There is a considerable difference, and one which has important implications not only for these 62 draughtsmen but for a very much larger number of categories of those affected by the standstill.
It is true that to allow these draughtsmen through would create only a little hole, because there are only 62 of them. But there are some pertinent observations on this which I will quote from remarks made in a previous debate:
Unless the application of this power is to be universal and is to bite not only on large blocks of men but on quite small caucuses of employees, its application is bound to he unfair and will be seen increasingly to be unfair …". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1966; Vol. 737, c. 1083.]


That principle was a perfectly sensible principle, and it was enunciated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). He was talking about the way in which claims are brought to the notice of Ministers, but this is a principle which has a much wider application than that and which applies in this case too.
If in this case we were to have allowed the draughtsmen's pay to go up automatically because their pay was linked to a Civil Service agreement, this would apply very much more widely. The staff of museums have their pay linked to the pay of the Civil Service, and the pay of a number of librarians, including those in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, is linked to the museums. Several public authorities have pay arrangements tied to the Civil Service, and the Atomic Energy Authority is a case in point.
The implications of allowing this particularly difficult case to fall on the other side of the line would have been very much wider than hon. Members on the other side have either realised or understood. To have yielded in this case, however deserving it might be, would have been bound to set off a chain reaction and introduce a position where many people were looking over their shoulders to see what others were getting, and it would have been bound to lead to a general spread of dissatisfaction.
It would have undermined and weakened the principle of universality which is essential if one is to keep the sense of injustice to a minimum.
The whole point of this Order, and the reason for taking the decision in this particular case, was because it was essential to make the standstill as universal as possible.
For these reasons I ask the House to reject this Motion.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I have tried very hard indeed to follow the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I feel that we cannot leave this Order without seeking some further clarification.
If I appear particularly bemused and bewildered, I have no shame in declaring

my state of mind this evening because I am quite certain that if every hon. Member in this House is honest with the House and with himself there can be no one who can feel that he can follow the intricacies of this particular case, having heard the Under-Secretary try to explain it with all the time he must have had to prepare his arguments.
He was moved, in his concluding remarks, to refer to the general support in the country for the Government's prices and incomes policy. May I assure him that such support as there is stems only from the fact that the general public have not yet realised that whilst the Government proclaim that they have been defending the £ from devaluation, they have certainly devalued the living standards of a very large section of the population of this country.
The people who might have expected their real incomes to increase by 5 per cent. over the last 18 months have seen the incomes standstill and a cost of living increase of 5 per cent. This has devalued their purchasing power and I should very much like to see an economist work out the effect on the standard of living of the people of this country.
To return to the Order, there are times when one receives in this House an illuminating illustration of the true worth of policies that are being pursued. After listening to the debate this evening, no one can fail to recognise the prices freeze for what it was, and that is a desperate and ill-prepared expedient which can survive for only a short time, because it is riddled with unreason and is shown to be the nonsense that it is.
I should like to put to the Under-Secretary one or two points for further clarification, because they are points on which we are entitled to have further information. Do I understand that those who have just joined this service have received the increased rate of pay? As I listened to the hon. Gentleman, as I tried hard to do, I understood that those who have joined recently have received the increased rate of pay.

Mr. Taverne: indicated assent.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I am glad that the Under-Secretary assents. Those who have served longer, however, are receiving less. Those with longer service are


on a lower rate of pay than those who have joined the service at a later date.
The hon. Gentleman puzzled me, perhaps, most of all when he said that after a certain period, people would be restored to a higher level. He had just been telling us that they had not suffered any reduction in salary. I cannot see how somebody is restored to a higher level of salary who has not received any reduction, and yet I have a firm note that "they would be restored to a higher level". Either there is something very peculiar about our understanding on this side or there must be something which is not yet fully clear about the Governrnent's arguments when they say, on the one hand, that people have received no diminution in salary from what they received formerly and in the next breath talk about their being restored to a higher level.
Surely, we cannot accept that people's living standards in the year 1967 shall be decided by whether it is possible for 2 Department of State to bring its computer into operation on a certain date. If I understood the Under-Secretary correctly, that is what decided the issue in this case. It was not a case of the final meeting of the negotiating machinery being due for the following day; it was not even a case of the decision being promulgated for the people concerned and, therefore, their being allowed to hear of something after the date of the freeze. What made the difference between whether the salary was or was not paid was that another pay claim for 1,000 cleaners was in the pipeline but the Government Department was incapable, apparently, computer and all, of putting the two into operation simultaneously.
Therefore, whilst someone was putting right the circuit in the computer, the pay of these gentlemen went by the board. I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) that this is not only an example of bad faith. It must surely be nonsense that people's living standards are dictated by whether it is possible to bring a computer into operation on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of the week.
Certainly, if a decision is known, this may affect the issue, but that the issue is decided simply because it has not been possible to stuff the £ notes into the pay

packet by a certain date makes complete nonsense of the Government, and I, like my hon. Friends, will have the greatest pleasure in voting for the Motion against the Order, which surely ridicules the whole process of government.

11. 14 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharpies: I intervene briefly because I think that when the Under-Secretary spoke, he missed one of the most important points which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
In a notice given out by the Department of Economic Affairs, these words are used:
The effect of this Order will be to restrict the pay of the draughtsmen until the overpayment has in effect been recovered.
My hon. Friend drew attention to this and also to Section 33(2) of the Act, which states that
An employer shall not under any circumstances be entitled, in consequence of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to contracts of employment, to recover any remuneration which he has paid.
My understanding is that, in fact, one of the effects of this Order, at least as I understand it from the hand-out issued by the Department, is to secure the recovery of money which has already been paid. I hope that we shall have a reply to this point because, otherwise, one must ask why in this case, where many employees are concerned, is not Section 33(2) of the Act complied with.

Mr. Taverne: I apologise for not having dealt with that point. No money is recovered by the Receiver. Pay is kept at a level until, in effect, the total emoluments are no greater than what the employee would have had had he complied with the standstill. There is the extra six months' pay—

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shaw: If this is the sort of notice we are getting under Part IV, then I hope that adherents of it are getting less in the Cabinet day by day.
I should like to deal briefly with the aspect introduced by the treatment of Mr. Phillips. We have had it admitted that he is getting his increase by virtue of the fact that he is a new employee. Therefore, we have the anomaly of a


new man having to turn to left and right, seeking guidance from his colleagues about the Department's work and the various routines and so on, so that he is getting what amounts to leadership from men who are paid at a lower rate than that which he himself receives. This is an absolutely absurd situation which, in industry generally, one has very much to guard against. I have had examples time and again where one has had to fill a vacancy, bringing in a new member of the staff from outside and one has had to pay an advanced salary.
The thing which one has to guard against is to see that the salaries of existing staff are made comparable with that of new employees. Indeed, this is one of the difficulties today in the employing of staff. As soon as one gets new staff, one has to look at the remuneration of the whole of a department, and not just the amount which one should pay the new man. This must be very unfair indeed.
I should like now to deal with one other point. It is that these draughtsmen are employed in a salary scale which is comparable in the link—I think that that is the term used by the Under-Secretary—which exists with their Civil Service counterparts. When these draughtsmen were engaged by the Department, was it clearly understood by them at the time of the engagement that their terms and conditions were to be linked to those of their Civil Service counterparts? If that was the understanding—and I believe that it was—then, even now, under the terms of the Prices and Incomes Act, their conditions should continue to link them exactly to their Civil Service counterparts.
If, as is probable, this Order does go through and continues to operate for some time, I suggest to the Under-Secretary that one thing will be certain in the future. All those other men and women employed under conditions of service

which have been traditionally linked not to a specific contract but by understanding and habit to their Civil Service counterparts, will in future make very sure that those links are not just something by way of custom, but are links by contract. The confidence of many thousands of people in this position will have been lost. It will be their union leaders' duty in future to arrange firm contracts linking them with the Civil Service.

This will apply throughout industry as well. In the past it has been good enough for people to have an understanding with their employers that their salaries would be reviewed each year. Although this is not a right, the increases are known because they always have them. Orders like this will mean that many more contracts will have to be entered into in industry, because there will be no confidence that, under pressure, the Government will not go back on all their pledges not to make wage restrictions compulsory. Once again, we might be landed in this sort of mess.

11.22 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: The key phrase of the Under-Secretary's speech was that, in effect, this Order overrides what counsel's view of the law was. He said that 62 draughtsmen have the right to six months' increase in pay which they will not now get. He defended the Order on what he called "the principle of universality". Let me define it—"Do as the Government say, or else." I recognise no such principle and regard it as ironic that it should be commended to the House by a Queen's Counsel. I shall vote for the withdrawal of the Order, as I hope will everyone else who believes in contractual rights for the individual and the rule of law.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 241.

Division No. 261.]
AYES
[11.25 p.m.


Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter


Astor, John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Black, Sir Cyril
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Bryan, Paul


Baker, W. H. K.
Body, Richard
Burden, F. A.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bossom, Sir Clive
Campbell, Gordon


Batsford, Brian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Carlisle, Mark


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Braine, Bernard
Channon, H. P. G.


Bessell, Peter
Brewis, John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Biffen, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clark Henry




Clegg, Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Cooke, Robert
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cordle, John
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Corfield, F. V.
Hooson, Emlyn
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Crawley, Aidan
Hunt, John
Peyton, John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Crowder, F. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.,
Russell, Sir Ronald


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Doughty, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, John


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stodart, Anthony


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Summers, Sir Spencer


Eyre, Reginald
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farr, John
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Teeling, Sir William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Temple, John M.


Fortescue, Tim
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maginnis, John E.
Tilney, John


Glover, Sir Douglas
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glyn, Sir Richard
Marten, Neil
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walters, Dennis


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gresham Cooke, R,
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Webster, David


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Whitelaw, William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wood, Rt. Hn, Richard


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
woodnutt, Mark


Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar
Worsley, Marcus


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Younger, Hn. George


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John
Mr. Francis Pym and Mr. Jasper More.


Higgins, Terence L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Carmichael, Neil
Ennals, David


Albu, Austen
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ensor, David


Alldritt, Walter
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Chapman, Donald
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Anderson, Donald
Coe, Denis
Fernyhough, E.


Archer, Peter
Coleman, Donald
Finch, Harold


Ashley, Jack
Concannon, J. D.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foley, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ford, Ben


Baxter, William
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Forrester, John


Bence, Cyril
Dalyell, Tam
Freeson, Reginald


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gardner, Tony


Binns, John
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Garrett, W. E.


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David


Blackburn, F.
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Delargy, Hugh
Gourlay, Harry


Boardman, H.
Dell, Edmund
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Boston, Terence
Dempsey, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dewar, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Boyden, James
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Donnelly, Desmond
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Driberg, Tom
Hannan, William


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Buchan, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Haseldine, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hattersley, Roy


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
English, Michael
Hazell, Bert







Henig, Stanley
Millan, Bruce
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hooley, Frank
Moonman, Eric
Short, Bt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Skeffington, Arthur


Howie, W.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Slater, Joseph


Hoy, James
Moyle, Roland
Small, William


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Snow, Julian


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Albert
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, Adam
Neal, Harold
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hynd, John
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Sprnb'gh)
Norwood, Christopher
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oakes, Cordon
Swingler, Stephen


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, Brian
Thornton, Ernest


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, Albert E.
Tinn, James


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Tomney, Frank


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, Walter
Varley, Eric G.


Judd, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Kelley, Richard
Paget, R. T.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Kenyon, Clifford
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lawson, George
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wallace, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Pavitt, Laurence
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pentland, Norman
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Weitzman, David


Lestor, Miss Joan
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wellbeloved, James


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Whitaker, Ben


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lomas, Kenneth
Probert, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Loughlin, Charles
Randall, Harry
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rankin, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McCann, John
Redhead, Edward
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


MacColl, James
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Richard, Ivor
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c"as)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Woof, Robert


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Roebuck, Roy
Yates, Victor


Manuel, Archie
Rose, Paul



Mapp, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marquand, David
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Mr. Neil McBride and




Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRIC MILK DELIVERY VEHICLES (DRIVERS' RECORDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am raising this matter tonight because I feel very strongly, as do others, that the time has come for an amendment to the existing legislation so far as it concerns the log books of drivers of electrically-controlled vehicles over 16 cwt. in weight. Many of my hon. Friends support me, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), I hope, will be able to catch your eye Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
One of my first jobs was as a milk roundsman. I delivered milk on a hand barrow, and I do not suppose that many hon. Members can say that they have done that. It was not long before I was promoted to delivering in a pony and trap. However, I never advanced to driving an electrically-controlled vehicle such as we are discussing tonight.
The keeping of drivers' records as at present required is a great waste of time and expense for the trade and all retailers who use this type of vehicle, particularly at this time of reduced profits and exceedingly high costs. I have here a copy of a report which appeared in the Daily Telegraph telling of the protests made by dairymen about their profit margin. It shows how difficult it is for the members of the National Dairymen's Association to cope with the rising costs they are experiencing, so much so that they have asked the Government to do something about it by raising the price of milk to help them.
What I am proposing tonight is one way by which the Government could give practical help. I fully appreciate the need for the existing regulations regarding drivers' records in other branches of transport. It is more important than ever today for the regulations to be kept and enforced because of the danger of excessive driving hours. But this cannot apply to electric vehicles; there is no danger there.
We cannot afford to allow this waste of the nation's resources in time and

money to continue. Why should records have to be kept of driving hours on electric vehicles used by dairymen, bakers and others? Very little time is actually spent in driving. Why keep records of hours worked when the details have to be given under other regulations relating to wages? It is ridiculous that a driver should have to fill in a log sheet giving his time of starting and the time of all breaks. Anyone in the trade or who has been a milk roundsman knows only too well the number of cups of tea that are offered to a man on his round. He has to put down the time of finishing as well. The sheets must be checked each day, recorded, filed and held for six months. They can be inspected by a Ministry of Transport inspector.
These inspections do take place, and there are a number of cases coming before the courts each year. The inspectors go to ridiculous lengths. I have one example here. A dairyman in the Crow-borough area was before the court for 133 offences of failing to keep proper records, including not showing whether it was a.m. or p.m., not giving the "C" licence number, not giving the company's address in full, not showing the area served in sufficient detail—that is, Crowborough was not considered adequate. What a waste of time. What ridiculous lengths the inspectors have to go to. It is all a terrible waste of time and money. It adds up to at least 1 million wasted man-hours a year, and we cannot afford such waste.
What is the opposition to doing away with these driving logs and records? First, the trade unions. They have obviously felt unhappy in the past, and I can understand that, but why should they feel unhappy now? The vehicles cannot go very far. Is it necessary to put up opposition? The vehicles can go only 25 to 30 miles at the very most, and they must then come in and have their batteries recharged, which takes 12 hours. The roundsmen clock in and out and there are regular rounds every day. I believe that the trade unions would have nothing to fear if there were exemption for that type of vehicle.
Furthermore, most drivers or rounds-men think the keeping of the records is an infernal nuisance. It creates ill-will between management and staff, and most


roundsmen would be delighted if further exemption could be made. The Minister may say that we have had a lot of exemption already. That is true. Over the years many electric vehicles have been exempted, but I believe that the need to go further with exemption is now very apparent, for today so many electric vehicles are in the taxation class above 16 cwt. One dairy firm in the Midlands has 1,000 electric vehicles that are not exempted, and in most other cases only five or six per cent. of electric vehicles are exempted. Records must be kept in respect of the rest. Anyway, to save any confusion most firms insist that all must keep full records, whether their vehicles are exempted or not. What a waste of time and energy!
The number of vehicles of this kind grows every year, and the figures show how rapidly it is rising. In 1938, there were only 4,156; in 1955 there were 21,700; and in 1965 there were 40,000—a considerable increase. Those figures do not include pedestrian-controlled vehicles. The figures are large and are growing every year, and we shall see an extension of the use of that type of vehicle.
I believe that because of the extension of the numbers, the problems I have mentioned will grow even greater year by year. Over 2 million weekly log sheets are compiled each year, taking 30 minutes each a week to write, examine, record and file. What a waste of time in these modern and—I hope—enlightened days! Surely, it is time for all concerned to support my plea?
I believe that my suggestion is a fight for increased productivity, and that it would now be welcomed by the trade union movement and by the roundsmen. The Minister of Transport would do a real service to the country if she exempted drivers of electric vehicles from regulations which were never intended to apply to them, and which achieve nothing but a terrible and annoying-to-all waste of effort.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I support the case made by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and his plea. Drivers of the type of vehicle concerned should be exempted from the present

regulations, which are absolutely unnecessary in my view, and a complete waste of a person's time.
The widespread use of electric vehicles was not visualised when the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, was passed. Even in 1935, when the regulations were made, the total of all electric vehicles was about 3,000, and a very limited number was milk vehicles. It is estimated that some 20,000 electric vehicles are now used in retail milk delivery, and they operate within a very limited space. Therefore, it is unnecessary to require drivers to keep log books.
I hope that the Minister will take notice of these please and will cut this work out. It would help to increase productivity and to keep down the cost of milk, because, under the Ministry of Agriculture's control, it could mean that the whole of the benefit would accrue to the public at large. I support the plea made by the hon. Gentleman.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I, too, support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). We are talking about the cost of milk distribution, and the last words on cost have been written in the Davies Report, made by Mr. H. L. Davies, former General Manager of the Milk Marketing Board. He presented his Report to the Minister on 17th January last year. He referred to the excellence of the milk distribution we have and the fact that it is unique in that over 95 per cent. of our homes now have milk delivered every day. In the United States, which is the next in the league table, the figure is only about 50 per cent. But Mr. Davies pointed seriously to the increasing costs and said:
There is every likelihood that … with the present system of milk distribution. costs will increase and there will need to be further adjustments upwards to consumer prices.
The main feature of rising costs on the distributive side has been the substantial increase in wages-cost in the last ten years.
Manpower for the job has always been short, although not so short today as it was six months ago. The milk rounds-man's job is far more complicated than most people realise and we are far from the days when it was reported from a West Country town that the local dairy manager had taken on three gentlemen


who had recently left the local lunatic asylum and, when reprimanded by head office, had said, "Please do not make me fire them for they are the best men I have." Today a roundsman has to be a man of considerable versatility and skill and he is a difficult man to find.
The Davies Report raised the whole question as to whether the daily milk delivery could continue because of rising prices. He said:
I am satisfied personally that consumers like the service and they would he reluctant, and perhaps most reluctant of all the parties, to consent to change.
Every possible reduction in the cost burden of the present system of milk distribution must be made so that we can carry on with this daily delivery, which is unique, as long as we can. I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to review the cases in which his inspectors have found breaches of the regulations by examining the files of dairy companies—which have millions of filed copies—and see whether, in any one of these cases, there has been any danger to life on the roads due to the fact that the driver of an electric vehicle has been too tired properly to control his vehicle. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would not find one case and I therefore urge him to persuade the Minister to amend the regulations.

11.48p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I will go straight to the root of the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). The statutory requirements governing hours of working for goods vehicle drivers are about to celebrate their 37th birthday. If the application of these regulations to drivers of electrically propelled vehicles were nonsensical and wasteful, I would find it astonishing that there had not been very powerful agitation to abolish it.
I recognise that there is a problem here, however, and I shall come to some specific comments in a moment. Let me first sketch the background. It was in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that the hours of work for drivers of goods vehicles were originally regulated. The present requirements are contained in Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which consolidated previous enactments. This

Section provides that a driver may not be at the wheel or work on the vehicle for more than 11 hours a day. In connection with this, a roundman is considered to be working on his vehicle when he is actually delivering milk.
The value of this legislation, as applied to goods vehicles in general, is, I think, undisputed. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman for Torrington said that himself. We all realise, especially today, that a fatigued driver is a menace to himself and to all other road users.
But there is a very real difficulty in enforcing regulations on hours limitation. Without some kind of record of the hours a man has worked, the requirement would be quite meaningless. That is why drivers of most vehicles operating under a carriers licence have to keep records of their hours of work, so that these can be inspected by the police and by the Ministry of Transport examiners in the enforcement of the regulations.
Obviously there are certain classes of drivers who are never likely to exceed the hours limits, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it was to help some of these that in 1962 an exemption from the keeping of records was introduced for the drivers of C-licensed vehicles of under 16 cwt. unladen weight, used only within five miles of their base. This exemption covers many tradesmen and the like engaged in local delivery work. But electric milk floats pose a special problem which is not easy to resolve. They are designed neither for high speeds nor for prolonged continuous use.
It has therefore been suggested that their drivers should not have to fill in records, especially as in the majority of cases they are engaged on delivery work following a set pattern each day and involving very little actual driving. The 1962 exemption did not help, because most electric milk floats, on account of their batteries, weigh over 16 cwt. unladen. Pedestrian-controlled floats are exempted, however, as they do not have to have carriers' licences.
I appreciate that it is unlikely that the driver of an electric milk float, or any other electric vehicle for that matter, will drive it for more than the total permitted hours. It would, however, be quite possible for him to exceed the maximum permitted continuous period of


work which is 5½ hours. I must stress that the purpose of these requirements is not to control the length of time over which a vehicle is used, but to control the length of time that the driver works. That is why we must have regard not only to the time that the milk rounds-man spends on his round, but to the total time in the day that he spends driving any vehicle subject to the hours limits.
He might, for instance, be required by his employer to drive a different vehicle early in the morning or after the milk round is finished. Alternatively, he might have separate employment, perhaps driving a lorry or a coach in the evening. The record forms are the only means under the law, as it stands at present, of checking that the total hours limits are not exceeded.
The requirement to keep records of hours worked serves also to protect a driver against an unscrupulous employer who might put pressure on him to exceed the permitted limits. Let me put the problem in perspective. There are at the moment 30,000 electrically-propelled goods vehicles on the road. Of these, 4,000 are pedestrian-controlled and are therefore exempt from the carriers' licence provisions.
I have myself examined one of the forms of the kind which a milk rounds-man would have to complete, and I am satisfied that the time spent each day in completing it would be well under five minutes. This shows, I hope, that the figure of 1 million man-hours per annum, which was recently quoted in another place as the time spent by milk rounds-men in completing their records, was an exaggeration.
Having said all this, may I give the hon. Gentleman and the House this ray of hope. We recognise that there are anomalies in the law concerning hours and records. On the 4th October last year my right hon. Friend announced her intention to review the statutory maximum hours of work for drivers of goods vehicles and buses.
This review is now in hand and covers not only statutory limits on hours, but methods of enforcement, penalties for infringement and requirements about record-keeping. We recognise that the value of these forms for milk roundsmen is debatable and we appreciate that the obligation on a driver of an electric milk float to fill in the forms and on his employer to check them is a tiresome obligation. We are therefore actively engaged in consultations with both the unions and the employers' organisations concerned.
One of the questions which we are considering is whether record-keeping to this extent is an indispensable ingredient of our measures to obtain safety on the roads. It may well be that in this case it is not necessary. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend is always on the look out for opportunities to streamline procedure and eliminate waste. If she is satisfied as a result of the consultations now going on that this form-filling is an unnecessary piece of red tape, then we shall not hesitate to abolish it, but before doing so we must be completely satisfied that safety requirements will not be jeopardised.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Twelve o'clock.